Is it just me or is it Stackpole?

[Banzai]

How many readers would connect with a character who wishes to be nothing but an avatar of chaos and destruction?  I mean, you get a few of those out there, but they are rarely anything sustainable as far as a story goes.

[Top Sergeant]

How many readers would connect with a character who wishes to be nothing but an avatar of chaos and destruction?  I mean, you get a few of those out there, but they are rarely anything sustainable as far as a story goes.

Clanners?  ::)

[Davout73]

Clanners?  ::)

The Master?

[Banzai]

Clanners?  ::)

Twisted and wrongheaded as it is, the Clan system is designed to avoid chaos and destruction, to pare it down to the smallest collateral damage as possible.  *shrug* That was one of the reason the Wars of Reaving was such a big punch.

[Sid]

Because there's more dramatic tension that way. A reluctant and conflicted hero who fights despite not wanting to is much better dramatically than some guy who suffers no doubts or remorse about going to war.

I find him hard to, 'relate to', I suppose though.  Of course, he's a noble, a ruler of an interplanetary realm with trillions of people and a 'mechwarrior' and soldier.  Not sure how much I can really relate to Victor in the first place.  He stands out to me, like a sore thumb though...so I suppose it's more about breaking my suspension of belief if anything.  I find it hard to take Victor seriously, especially as the main protagonist because of it.

I don't find him any more dramatic than, say, Theodore Kurita in Heir to the Dragon.  Hell, even Justin Xian-Allard to keep the comparison to the same author.

We have plenty of Inner Sphere protagonists that have starred in novels that, while they don't eagerly crave war and destruction- or even power... aren't so out of place as Victor.  Characters that believe in a greater world- are faced with hard choices.  Focht showing regret for his past actions against Melissa and Katrina- almost seeking redemption.  Even going so far to murder Waterly in seeking to protect the Inner Sphere from the Clans.

Thomas Halas, Shin, Dan Allard- hell, even Sun Tzu I can all find believable.

But don't give me someone that's been groomed to lead not one, but two Inner Sphere Houses- w hose's father started the Fourth Succession War.  That's fought the Clans and already planned (and executed) a plan to show the Clans what real war is like.  That's taken war to not only the soliders of the Clans but the civilians.  Destroyed the Smoke Jaguars' way of life before destroying the Clan itself.

That does all of this.  Already made peace with it.  And on the final battle with the leader of the Clans- the very person that threatens trillions of people-not only your own.  An enemy that has tried to kill you in a 'trial'.  Who you've already prepared and decided to kill.

Suddenly change your mind, show regret, and be unable to do the deed unless he gives you absolutely no choice by attacking you and making the attack self defense.  Especially when you had no issue with killing Black Dragon assassins only a couple years earlier.

I mean, did changing Star Wars to make Greedo or whatever the hell his name was really make Han Solo more dramatic by shooting in self defense?

[roosterboy]

So it's impossible for people to tire of something they once were somewhat okay with? It's impossible for Vic to have tired of war after the campaign of annihilation the League waged against the Jaguars?

[Top Sergeant]

Twisted and wrongheaded as it is, the Clan system is designed to avoid chaos and destruction, to pare it down to the smallest collateral damage as possible. 

Well I guess that idea didn't work out as intended.  ;D

[ColBosch]

Well I guess that idea didn't work out as intended.  ;D

Very rarely do high ideals survive contact with the real world. Sick control-freak fantasies, on the other hand, tend to last centuries in isolation until you invade the Inner Sphere and your lower castes realize just how bad they have it...wait, I think I was talking generalities a moment ago.

[Doug Glendower]

I relate to Victor a lot, actually. My father went to war, and then raised me to be pretty much a pacifist. I can see myself taking up arms for the country in time of real need, but frankly, I think that alternatives can be found. So, there's the link with me and Vic.

I'm a big believer in the Robby Jackson school of combat.

[Top Sergeant]

Yes, I can see where Vic's parents did him, and the entire nation, a huge disservice.

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

How many readers would connect with a character who wishes to be nothing but an avatar of chaos and destruction?  I mean, you get a few of those out there, but they are rarely anything sustainable as far as a story goes.

How many people can identify with someone who gives speeches instead of having a conversation? Stackpole heroes are neve built around relatability, the idea is if they are "special" enough we will like them.

[StCptMara]

How many people can identify with someone who gives speeches instead of having a conversation?

Any politician.

[A. Lurker]

How many people can identify with someone who gives speeches instead of having a conversation?

Realistic diction is unrealistic. Fictional characters practically never talk the way actual people do in real life, anyway.

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

If you're going to stylize your dialogue, at least make it interesting and clever, and above all, concise (unless you are intentionally characterizing someone as a pompous windbag, in which case every character in his novels is one). I'm more willing to forgive the unrealism of clever, rapid-fire quips than a character answering a straightforward question with a paragraph-long speech that could have been summed up entirely in the final sentence without losing any of its meaning.

[A. Lurker]

If you're going to stylize your dialogue, at least make it interesting and clever, and above all, concise (unless you are intentionally characterizing someone as a pompous windbag, in which case every character in his novels is one). I'm more willing to forgive the unrealism of clever, rapid-fire quips than a character answering a straightforward question with a paragraph-long speech that could have been summed up entirely in the final sentence without losing any of its meaning.

Well, at that point it comes down to personal taste. Considering that a lot of his viewpoint characters are rulers, nobles, military commanders or otherwise highly-placed -- people I honestly wouldn't expect to either speak or be casually addressed the way Joe Everybody on the street might --, it'd arguably put more strain on my suspension of disbelief if there was less speechifying going on.

[skiltao]

If you're going to stylize your dialogue, at least make it interesting and clever, and above all, concise (unless you are intentionally characterizing someone as a pompous windbag, in which case every character in his novels is one).

Aren't a lot of those exposition that Stackpole would have worked in somehow regardless? For instance, I was reading whichever Twilight of the Clans book has Vic & friends planning to hit Strana Mechty, and the first couple chapters of dialogue have nothing to do with character or plot development and everything to do with reminding you how the BattleTech universe works.

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

Yeah, that's Claremont-style. I would consider the two of them on about the same skill level, too. The man who has all his characters have conversations by giving speeches, even in personal conversation, versus the guy who had Cyclops and Wolverine explain how their powers work to each other all the time? Hack-off is go.

[skiltao]

Heh!

[A. Lurker]

To be fair to Claremont, with comic books you have the ongoing problem that (a) any given issue may be some new reader's first one and (b) you only have so many pages to put the exposition kind of required by (a) into. So yeah, stuff like "oh, remember how my powers work?" can get a bit repetitive, especially when dealing with things that genuinely are easier to express in words than in a series of still images.

...and really, that Wolverine has a healing factor doesn't necessarily mean I'd insist on wanting to be treated to a full graphic rendition of it each time it kicks in, either. ;)

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

To be fair to Claremont, with comic books you have the ongoing problem that (a) any given issue may be some new reader's first one and (b) you only have so many pages to put the exposition kind of required by (a) into. So yeah, stuff like "oh, remember how my powers work?" can get a bit repetitive, especially when dealing with things that genuinely are easier to express in words than in a series of still images.

...and really, that Wolverine has a healing factor doesn't necessarily mean I'd insist on wanting to be treated to a full graphic rendition of it each time it kicks in, either. ;)

They solved this in modern comics by having a "these are the characters and how their powers work" page on the inside of the front cover, kind of like some of the print runs of BT novels had glossaries in the back.

[ColonelCody]

Y'know I find it continually amusing that people argue this point over, and over and over again. complaining and saying how they hated these stories. These same stories are th basis for everything we love in Battletech, these stories are the background and details we thrive in as the players of this game for more than a QUARTER OF A CENTURY. so if you do not like, answer me this...WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE? I can ignore the GDL boosk becuase honestly after Helm they were worthless plotwise. The 17th Recon books with Cassie, I can ignore them too they didn't do anything really epic to the universe at large. Can't ignore the Warrior Books, or BoK, or Twilight of the Clans, or the Heir to the Dragon and Wolves on the Border, these are al llandmarks in the universe. The details and plots of these books are the stuff of our legends.

[Sid]

Y'know I find it continually amusing that people argue this point over, and over and over again. complaining and saying how they hated these stories. These same stories are th basis for everything we love in Battletech, these stories are the background and details we thrive in as the players of this game for more than a QUARTER OF A CENTURY. so if you do not like, answer me this...WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE? I can ignore the GDL boosk becuase honestly after Helm they were worthless plotwise. The 17th Recon books with Cassie, I can ignore them too they didn't do anything really epic to the universe at large. Can't ignore the Warrior Books, or BoK, or Twilight of the Clans, or the Heir to the Dragon and Wolves on the Border, these are al llandmarks in the universe. The details and plots of these books are the stuff of our legends.

Because the game universe is rich and diverse?

Sure, Stackpole's novels were the major story arcs.

So what?

The Warrior trilogy doesn't flush out the Free World's League.  Does that mean it's irrelevant?

Is the Star Adder and Blood Spirit feud not interesting because it wasn't in Blood of Kerensky?

Does the 3025 appeal of 'simpler' weapons and of lostech being mythical- where being dispossessed is a death sentence ultimately pointless because none of Stackpole's books take place before the 4th Succession War?

Finally, as Stackpole does not have anything to do with the current Jihad (despite his claims of everything being 'his' idea) presented by the current TPTB- should I not enjoy it as Stackpole isn't writing it?

[RedDevilCG]

These same stories are th basis for everything we love in Battletech, these stories are the background and details we thrive in as the players of this game for more than a QUARTER OF A CENTURY. so if you do not like, answer me this...WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE? I

I've never read a single book and I love this game.  I like playing with mechs, rolling dice, and blowing things up.  The source books are fantastic.  Are you saying that the source books are badly written, and Stackpole saves the game?

[ColonelCody]

I've never read a single book and I love this game.  I like playing with mechs, rolling dice, and blowing things up.  The source books are fantastic.  Are you saying that the source books are badly written, and Stackpole saves the game?

Nope not what I said.
What I said was, I loved it all and the stuff Stack did amplified my enjoyment of it at the time. still does to be honest.

Because the game universe is rich and diverse?

Sure, Stackpole's novels were the major story arcs.

So what?

The Warrior trilogy doesn't flush out the Free World's League.  Does that mean it's irrelevant?

Is the Star Adder and Blood Spirit feud not interesting because it wasn't in Blood of Kerensky? {Honestly I think it is NOt interesting. since I never really was presented with a view of it that was more than historical summary}

Does the 3025 appeal of 'simpler' weapons and of lostech being mythical- where being dispossessed is a death sentence ultimately pointless because none of Stackpole's books take place before the 4th Succession War? {ABsolutely not, I loe the 3025 era stuff, it's my favorite, Hanse Davion was my God back then. :) }

Finally, as Stackpole does not have anything to do with the current Jihad (despite his claims of everything being 'his' idea) presented by the current TPTB- should I not enjoy it as Stackpole isn't writing it? {Nope, like you say it's irrelevant that he has nothing to do with it, But I wil lsay again, I dislike the jihad, i dislike how it was handled thus far and i dislike that it is an unmutable tory/plot channel thru wich i must walk into the DA and beyond. wich is where my universe can once again deviate from the Canon. }

COMPLETELY Not what i said. What I mean is, that if he made these things so bad for so many people why bother? Obviously he did SOMETHING right, So why waste time on the negatives? There are flaws in everything. I dislike the Jihad as a whole and  rule, but I stil lplay in it, but i enjoy the whole fabric of the universe of Battletech. Stackpole did not create the universe, nor did he flesh out everything, maybe he failed at  a few things, but somewhere, sometime, people liked it, the books sold WELL, they didn't just sell, they sold WELL. I'm just getting tired of listening to the constant, whining and criticism. IF you don't like it, DONT READ THE BOOKS PEOPLE. Play with the other books, don't open a copy of Warrior: Coupe. or Blood of Kerensky or any of the others.  I liked his stuff when i was 13, i enjoyed the books, maybe i've moved past them into more mature styles of stuff.
RD, go on, enjoy what you enjoy. I hope you continue to play, continue to enjoy the source books, I do as well. If i didn't enjoy these Sourcebooks I wouldn't have bought them the first time, and when my first copies of them wore out i went and bought REPLACEMENTS.
Do whatm akes you happy. Do what you enjoy. Stop whining about the books you don't like and get past it.

[Sid]

COMPLETELY Not what i said.

Huh, really?

What I mean is, that if he made these things so bad for so many people why bother?

I, and a few others, say we don't like Stackpole's novels.

That's <i>all</i> we're saying.

You then conclude that if it's 'so bad why play'?

That's a strawman's argument.

If you don't like the Jihad, why play the game?

Do you see what I'm doing there? You invariably reply "Well, the Jihad isn't *that* bad" and then *I* can argue "Well, see?  The Jihad is good".

It doesn't work that way.  You don't like the Jihad, fair enough.

What I'm tired of, however, is whenever Stackpole comes up, people inevitably conclude that Stackpole did create the game and therefor we should like his books, and if we don't, we should get out.

Which is definately what your post, -to me- comes across as.  If you say that's not what you're saying, then fine.  But that's how it comes across.

As for the 'Stackpole did/did not create Battletech' - well he certainly implies it.  He just as much said so on his own, very, blog.  It's been quoted earlier in this thread- he outright states that any ideas some one thinks up of for Battletech has already been considered by him, and even if if hasn't...it involves the characters he created and thus sprung from him anyway.

Which I very much disagree with.  Fine, he created the Kell Hounds and the Wolfhound.  Fantastic.  Good for him.  That doesn't mean he should get the lion's share of everything related to the Kell Hounds after he walked out the door.

Okay, so he created Vlad as a foil to his Mary Sue Phelan.  Again, fine.  Vlad existed purely to show off how good Phelan was and to show how 'evil' the Crusaders were- sadistic, whipping bondsmen, beating up old men, cheating at Trials.

And then Stackpole needed someone to lead Clan Wolf after he made the Exiles, so suddenly Vlad is more than a one dimensional cutout that could have stared alongside Cobra on G.I. Joe.  Great.

That doesn't mean Loren's writeup of Clan Wolf in FM:CC isn't a well done piece that shouldn't be credited to Loren.  Ben's work on Wars of Reaving and Vlad's portrayal shouldn't be thrown under Stackpole's name either.

I don't see Justin Allard (Copyright Michael Stackpole) in the Warrior Trilogy.

He was a contracted author.  His work is not owned by him- he *sold it* and whatever current author decides to do with said character (and is approved by the Line Developer) should go to that author.

I should be allowed to dislike an author's work if I don't like it.  I don't need to be forced to like it.  I don't need to like Victor Steiner-Davion to be allowed to play this game (or like it either).

I like Ilsa's work on the MWDA novels she wrote.  Some people don't.  That's their entitled opinion. 

And that same entitlement should apply to any fan that doesn't care for an author.  Even if it is the godly Stackpole.

Now, you conclude that because people bought the books- clearly they liked him. 

Well, the Jihad books are selling.  In fact, Battletech is a hell of a lot stronger than it was five, ten, years ago.  So- clearly, the Jihad is good and you're wrong for not liking it.

Right?

[ColonelCody]

Huh, really?

I, and a few others, say we don't like Stackpole's novels.

That's <i>all</i> we're saying.

You then conclude that if it's 'so bad why play'?

That's a strawman's argument.

If you don't like the Jihad, why play the game?

Do you see what I'm doing there? You invariably reply "Well, the Jihad isn't *that* bad" and then *I* can argue "Well, see?  The Jihad is good".

It doesn't work that way.  You don't like the Jihad, fair enough.

What I'm tired of, however, is whenever Stackpole comes up, people inevitably conclude that Stackpole did create the game and therefor we should like his books, and if we don't, we should get out.

Which is definately what your post, -to me- comes across as.  If you say that's not what you're saying, then fine.  But that's how it comes across.

As for the 'Stackpole did/did not create Battletech' - well he certainly implies it.  He just as much said so on his own, very, blog.  It's been quoted earlier in this thread- he outright states that any ideas some one thinks up of for Battletech has already been considered by him, and even if if hasn't...it involves the characters he created and thus sprung from him anyway.

Which I very much disagree with.  Fine, he created the Kell Hounds and the Wolfhound.  Fantastic.  Good for him.  That doesn't mean he should get the lion's share of everything related to the Kell Hounds after he walked out the door.

Okay, so he created Vlad as a foil to his Mary Sue Phelan.  Again, fine.  Vlad existed purely to show off how good Phelan was and to show how 'evil' the Crusaders were- sadistic, whipping bondsmen, beating up old men, cheating at Trials.

And then Stackpole needed someone to lead Clan Wolf after he made the Exiles, so suddenly Vlad is more than a one dimensional cutout that could have stared alongside Cobra on G.I. Joe.  Great.

That doesn't mean Loren's writeup of Clan Wolf in FM:CC isn't a well done piece that shouldn't be credited to Loren.  Ben's work on Wars of Reaving and Vlad's portrayal shouldn't be thrown under Stackpole's name either.

I don't see Justin Allard (Copyright Michael Stackpole) in the Warrior Trilogy.

He was a contracted author.  His work is not owned by him- he *sold it* and whatever current author decides to do with said character (and is approved by the Line Developer) should go to that author.

I should be allowed to dislike an author's work if I don't like it.  I don't need to be forced to like it.  I don't need to like Victor Steiner-Davion to be allowed to play this game (or like it either).

I like Ilsa's work on the MWDA novels she wrote.  Some people don't.  That's their entitled opinion. 

And that same entitlement should apply to any fan that doesn't care for an author.  Even if it is the godly Stackpole.

Now, you conclude that because people bought the books- clearly they liked him. 

Well, the Jihad books are selling.  In fact, Battletech is a hell of a lot stronger than it was five, ten, years ago.  So- clearly, the Jihad is good and you're wrong for not liking it.

Right?

I'm done with arguing. Obviously your right, i'm wrong. Wich is by the way, the way EVERYONE feels when it comes to Stackpole. Doesn't matter your views or your evidence. I've never read the MWDA books since icould never find them in the nearby stores when they were printed. I heard mixed reviews, I'd love to believe they were good. You're right, the Jihad has seemingly been good for the game's sales if nothing else. My view is that I liked his books when i was 14 or 16. as a 40 year old man, I reread the Warrior books when this thread started, I still do. I still like Kell Hounds, I still Like the Wolf's Dragoons, my anti-cappellan feelings have not changed, my disapointment in the FWL league has not change over the years. Am I a Bad Guy for like his books? Maybe according to some extremists. I don't think you're bad or stupid or foolish for not liking his books. I don't like the sparkly vampires books but the author has made millions and the company thatowns them has made literally BILLIONS. Doesnt mean that they are good they just appeal to lots a people.
Taking my sopabox now and shutting up on this thread. have fun gentlemen, and blow up some mechs. It's why we are here after all right?

[RedDevilCG]

I don't think anyone called you a bad guy.  I think people are responding to your statement of "get lost" if you don't like them.

I'm still confused as to why you even stated such a thing.....

[ColonelCody]

I don't think anyone called you a bad guy.  I think people are responding to your statement of "get lost" if you don't like them.

I'm still confused as to why you even stated such a thing.....

I did not say "Get lost if you didn't like it" I said, don't like it? Why subject yourself to something that makes you unhappy? If you don't like the books, do not read them. THATS ALL. Now this is my LAST statement on this here topic. gack......

[StCptMara]

Y'know I find it continually amusing that people argue this point over, and over and over again. complaining and saying how they hated these stories. These same stories are th basis for everything we love in Battletech, these stories are the background and details we thrive in as the players of this game for more than a QUARTER OF A CENTURY. so if you do not like, answer me this...WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE? I can ignore the GDL boosk becuase honestly after Helm they were worthless plotwise. The 17th Recon books with Cassie, I can ignore them too they didn't do anything really epic to the universe at large. Can't ignore the Warrior Books, or BoK, or Twilight of the Clans, or the Heir to the Dragon and Wolves on the Border, these are al llandmarks in the universe. The details and plots of these books are the stuff of our legends.

(relevant portion bolded for emphasis)

You know, looking at that bolded portion, it certainly seems that you are saying "If you do not like Stackpole's writing style, why are you still playing the game?" Since this is a thread more dealing with people kvetching about Stackpole's
STYLE, not the events portrayed in the novels, or people kvetching about Stackpole's arrogance. They have nothing
to do with that reaction. I can dislike HOW the Blood of Kerensky trilogy was written and not have any issues with the
events themselves.

[Sid]

Am I a Bad Guy for like his books? Maybe according to some extremists.

First, no one is calling you a 'bad guy'. 

While my posts can get heated, at times, I didn't mean for my reply to come off in any way a personal attack.  Apologies if it came off otherwise.

My view is that I liked his books when i was 14 or 16. as a 40 year old man, I reread the Warrior books when this thread started, I still do. I still like Kell Hounds, I still Like the Wolf's Dragoons, my anti-cappellan feelings have not changed, my disapointment in the FWL league has not change over the years.

I, too, read several of his novels when I was in my younger teens- and I enjoyed them then.  I don't now.  My tastes changed, as I grew older and started reading the sourcebooks.  I, personally, don't think they fit now. 

I don't think I've ever come down on anyone for liking a particular faction or author; at least seriously anyway.  I'll joke that 'we can't be friends' once they admit to liking FedSun/WiE/Jade Falcon/Bear/<Insert not Clan Wolf answer here>.  But it's just a joke.

There's nothing wrong with someone liking Stackpole.  People have different tastes.

Just because I, and others, don't like his style doesn't mean others can't, or shouldn't.

Just like I can dislike Stackpole's works- but not him himself.  I've never met the guy, and others have said he's a good guy.  That's entirely possible- despite that one blog post that 'rankles the fur'.

If I had the opportunity, I'd probably attempt to pick his brain on the whole Refusal War over some beer.  I can respect the work he's done, even if I greatly dislike some of his characters.

For example, I really like Blaine's Target of Opportunity novel.  I dislike his Betrayal of Ideals and wish he took it in a different direction.  I can still dislike the way he did it, but be glad he wrote what really happened with Clan Wolverine too.

I did not say "Get lost if you didn't like it" I said, don't like it? Why subject yourself to something that makes you unhappy? If you don't like the books, do not read them. THATS ALL. Now this is my LAST statement on this here topic. gack......

As Mara said, your earlier comment came across (at least to me) as 'Stackpole made the game what it is today.  If you don't like what he did, why play the game?'

You did tend to put a heavy emphasis on the work he did ("These same stories are the basis for everything we love in Battletech") and then ask why we're 'here' in capital letters.  Mentioning 'everything we love in Battletech' and then using 'here' implies to me that you're asking why we're playing the game instead of just talking about Stackpole's style.

This isn't to say you're a bad guy, or you did something bad- it's just trying to explain where I was coming from in my posts above.