No, even as a standalone series, the thing is a train wreck with unlikable stereotypes and horrible pacing.
True, but FR literature isn't exactly known for being amongst the best written literature in the world. I'm not saying it was good (it wasn't), but we have to look at such things objectively, and try to see what it would look like from a non-Baldur's Gate fan's perspective. Would a non-fan enjoy it? Probably not, but they wouldn't hate it as much as we hate it. ;-)
Could a novelization series of the games work? Sure, why not? There's plenty of liberty... but not like that!
You know, I actually have to wonder just how much information he was given about the game's story. From the word 'go', he got it wrong, having Abdel as a veteran sellsword when the whole point of the game is that the protagonist was supposed to be kept hidden away in Candlekeep because of the dangers of his heritage, and from there it just gets worse...did anybody from Bioware actually read the book before giving the go-ahead to publish it?
Yeah....but most FR novels aren't based on a already written story, with a fleshed out main plot, and with clearly defined characters with already established personalities.
Besides, it's not that hard to work out that the main character was most likely a Neutral Good male human fighter for BG1 due to the rail-roading in BG2.
I can't really comment on the Baldur's Gate books as I haven't read them, even though I'm sure they are bad from what I'm reading here. However, I feel compelled to comment on this
the writing was subpar even by fantasy-scifi standards
@DreadKhan, you seem to imply that fantasy/sci-fi literature has very low standards. I beg to differ. If this is what you really think, it looks to me that you simply didn't find so far the right authors/books.
Actually, I have read lots of EVERYTHING. And yes, I am saying that scifi and fanatasy have some really bad authors that have been published. Mystery novels may have worse authors, but seeing as they rarely are creating a universe, its less problematic. Its easier to write a mystery, and a halfdecent editor can easily salvage a flubbed mystery.
Scifi is usually worse for lazy writing. Not sure why, but 'an engineer did it' is less asspulley than 'a wizard did it', so they overdo both inane technology and empty techjabber.
I have read very well written fantasy and even some good scifi, but I have read more that probably should have been rewritten extensively. I dont like naming names, so if you havent found mountains of dreck yet in scifi/fantasy, you might not have read enough other writers. Its long, but Counte of Montecristo by Dumas is a fabulous novel. Chock full of old timey worldview, its weird but its good. Its not the most challenging writing, but its very entertainment.
@DreadKhan, I see. I personally don't think that sci-fi or fantasy have worse writers in average or lower standards than any other kind of literature. And yes, I read my fair share of bad books too, but it's the same in any other genre as well, and this is also true for the so called mainstream literature.
You are entirely entitled to your opinion, and so am I. Its not like either of us can offer an objective defence. Many very good books have been written in the fantasy genre, but the genre imo is low on true 'classics'.
I'm with @DreadKhan on this one, although it's less to do with the genre, and more the setting. People who write for aleady established fantasy and sci-fi fandoms like Forgotten Realms, Warhammer/40k, etc tend to be not as good as authors who write their own material. Don't get me wrong, there are some decent authors out there (Dan Abnett, for example, is probably one of the best of that kind that I know of), but they can't compare to the Tolkiens, the Dumases, the Robert Louis Stevensons, etc - people who write their own worlds, their own characters, their own genres. If they were that good, they'd be writing their own bestsellers, and not for somebody else's intellectual property.
The difference, I think, is that somebody like George R. R. Martin has created his own brand, with his own world, his own characters, and his own take on the genre. R. A. Salvatore writes for an established world, using established characters as well as his own, and often writing to a specific brief.
It doesn't help, also, that they tend to have a limited audience, because they write for a specific setting. Not many people who aren't interested in Forgotten Realms are likely to pick up a Drizzt book, but somebody not interested in Westeros might pick up Game of Thrones.
@Squire, I fully agree with you and I apologise if I wasn't clear enough, but I meant fantasy/sci-fi in general and not just in those settings.
In particular while I like some good fantasy too and occasionally I read and enjoy other genres or mainstream literature, my favourite genre is hard science fiction and there is plenty of good authors to choose from
I actually found the BG book in a Borders back in the day, when I was too young to know any better. For some reason they had a huge fantasy/scifi section and I picked it up (there was only one copy on the shelf).
Yeah, it was terrible. There was nothing of the charm of the games in it. It even smelled funny. I sort of wish I still had it just so I could revisit the awfulness. But that's probably taking curiosity too far.
Yes, hard scifi is usually better imho for the same reason 'low' fantasy tends to be better; writers cant use magic, technology etc as a crutch. High magic settings arent inherently bad, but you get two 'bad' archtypes, scifi the same. One archetype is to have overly detailed action sequences which usually collapse under their own weight (granularity of combat sequences are the biggest offender), the other is the opposite, writers obsessed with the splendour and overdetail everything BUT action, making reading a chore. Overdescription shows up in scifi or fantasy when the author is bad at introducing things, especially the 'big differences' between their world and reality, and thus end up flouncing on tangents. It can also show up when an author makes things too weird to easily grasp, and fail to sufficiently pace said weirdness.
On top of those two huge pitfalls, all the standard flaws that can occur in writing can occur in scifi and fantasy. Because most scifi and fantasy literature isnt directed at the more demanding readers, publishers have historically been very fond of 'proven tropes' and stereotypes to make books more 'saleable'. The primary market was daydreaming young males, not a very discerning demographic. I have to admit the situation for authors not working in a 'setting' is better than ever, even big names like Star Wars feature an entire universe of cis straight people. Its no longer as acceptable to just lean on the old system of churning out sludge. Also, fans of scifi and fantasy have grown older, and some still like the escapism. This has been going on for many years.
Comments
@Jenzafar Kickstart that. Would so read that. Well, as much as my poorly adjusted 22 year old male mind could handle. . .
Besides, it's not that hard to work out that the main character was most likely a Neutral Good male human fighter for BG1 due to the rail-roading in BG2.
Scifi is usually worse for lazy writing. Not sure why, but 'an engineer did it' is less asspulley than 'a wizard did it', so they overdo both inane technology and empty techjabber.
I have read very well written fantasy and even some good scifi, but I have read more that probably should have been rewritten extensively. I dont like naming names, so if you havent found mountains of dreck yet in scifi/fantasy, you might not have read enough other writers. Its long, but Counte of Montecristo by Dumas is a fabulous novel. Chock full of old timey worldview, its weird but its good. Its not the most challenging writing, but its very entertainment.
The difference, I think, is that somebody like George R. R. Martin has created his own brand, with his own world, his own characters, and his own take on the genre. R. A. Salvatore writes for an established world, using established characters as well as his own, and often writing to a specific brief.
It doesn't help, also, that they tend to have a limited audience, because they write for a specific setting. Not many people who aren't interested in Forgotten Realms are likely to pick up a Drizzt book, but somebody not interested in Westeros might pick up Game of Thrones.
In particular while I like some good fantasy too and occasionally I read and enjoy other genres or mainstream literature, my favourite genre is hard science fiction and there is plenty of good authors to choose from
Yeah, it was terrible. There was nothing of the charm of the games in it. It even smelled funny. I sort of wish I still had it just so I could revisit the awfulness. But that's probably taking curiosity too far.
On top of those two huge pitfalls, all the standard flaws that can occur in writing can occur in scifi and fantasy. Because most scifi and fantasy literature isnt directed at the more demanding readers, publishers have historically been very fond of 'proven tropes' and stereotypes to make books more 'saleable'. The primary market was daydreaming young males, not a very discerning demographic. I have to admit the situation for authors not working in a 'setting' is better than ever, even big names like Star Wars feature an entire universe of cis straight people. Its no longer as acceptable to just lean on the old system of churning out sludge. Also, fans of scifi and fantasy have grown older, and some still like the escapism. This has been going on for many years.
I think I'm ranting... I'll see myself out.