Delightful Posted July 17, 2014 Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 I'm currently halfway through Eye of the World, and I have to say, Trollocs seem a bit bland. I'm finding them to be very generic monster-creatures for the good guys to fight, but I literally don't find them scary at all, almost more like a giant plot device than anything. I know I'm only something like 3% into the series, but I was just wondering if this is a normal reaction/do they get any scarier? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quiver Posted July 17, 2014 Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 For what it's worth- from someone who is only two books ahead of you- that was much of my reaction to them as well. I was a bit biased from the start, since even the name kind of sounds like 'orc'... but they do seem very much like generic monsters; they aren't human, so it's okay to murder them with impunity, guys! To be fair- or perhaps a little damning- I can't really remember them doing much in the next two books, which have more interesting villains. I'm sure they do pop up again, and maybe they do get scarier, but... unless something awesome happens, I think I'm going to be stuck thinking of them as the generic footsoldiers of evil. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delightful Posted July 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 (edited) If the next books have more interesting villians, that's okay too. I was just worried that, since The Dark One at the moment is a bit of a vague threat, Trollocs aren't scary and I could *maybe* become scared of Halfmen, that it wasn't going to get better. Thanks Congrats on getting to 1000 rep, by the way. Edited July 17, 2014 by Delightful 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreathTaker Posted July 17, 2014 Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 I'm on book 9 (putting off finishing it by rereading all my Sanderson first.) and as far as I can remember (like I said ALL my Sanderson, it's been a while) Trollocs (Troll-orcs haha) are pretty lame. Mydraal are pretty scary though and they get scarier. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimmingly Posted July 17, 2014 Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 Yeah, I was kind of annoyed the way we never saw a sympathetic or even neutral Trolloc. There were no Trollocs trying to escape their society, no delving into their motivations or origin besides'a wizard did it'. Pretty uninspired. Some of the other beasties got interesting, though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of nowhere Posted July 17, 2014 Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 YEs, trollocs are not intersting. they are just the basic monster mook. in the eye of the world a trolloc tries to talk to rand, but that's the only time. well, not every villain can be intersting. It gets a bit more intersting when the reader discover that they are supersoldiers created with age of legends genetic engineering and then touched by the dark one. myrdral are born from trolloc, oncce every while, as a sort of genetical defect. the guide also mentions female trollocs; they just stay in the blight and breed very fast. that's it. But, well, the trollocs are just mooks. it's not like the regular soldiers in the armmies aare much more intersting than them, from a narrative point of view. the real enemies are the forsaken and other darkfriends powerful enough to have their own agenda. trollocs are no more than their pawns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tien'sPetLurg Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 I don't remember ever being frightened when reading a story. But I do grow to love/hate certain characters and am interested to see how things will be resolved. What I find interesting is WoT was my 1st fantasy series. So the "tropes" and things didn't come across as cliché to me. It all seemed original and interesting. In fact, I remember telling my friend who suggested the series "You had me at Trollocs." The same friend tried to get me into The Furies of Calderon. I couldn't go past the first book. I felt like "I've already experienced most of this general story in the Wheel of Time." Those of you who have read both series know all the nuances and can tell me how wrong I am. I didn't bother reading further because I didn't care what happened to the character. I was afraid my interest in the entire genre was going to be a one-off. Sanderson's systems, characters and social commentary keep it fresh. So I want to say "stick with Wheel of Time you'll love it" but I'm not sure that's true if you've already read a bunch of this stuff already. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delightful Posted July 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2014 I guess I was saying, I'm not scared of the Trollocs nor do I hate them at the moment, they're sort of just there. Well, I'm planning to give it at least a couple of books before deciding if I like it, since the general consensus seems to be that it gets more original after the first book. I'll see how that goes BTW, are Darkfriends and Halfmen the same thing? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimmingly Posted July 19, 2014 Report Share Posted July 19, 2014 Darkfriend: Person who has pledged them self to the Dark One or one of his lackeys. Halfman: Fade, eyeless thing of shadow and terror. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delightful Posted July 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2014 Darkfriend: Person who has pledged them self to the Dark One or one of his lackeys. Halfman: Fade, eyeless thing of shadow and terror. So which is the one that controls the Trollocs? Or am I more confused than I thought? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimmingly Posted July 19, 2014 Report Share Posted July 19, 2014 The Forsaken are the generals, the Darkfriends are everything from local supporters to human officers or soldiers for the dark ones. Halfmen are kind of like sergeants or lieutenants that have psychic control over troops of Trollocs. They represent a regression towards mankind in Trolloc populations, with human-level intelligence and some kind of shadow-based teleportation ability. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delightful Posted July 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2014 (edited) So Darkfriends don't necessarily have any kind of magic? And Warders can sense Darkfriends but not Halfmen? Or both? Thanks Swimmingly . Probably if I kept reading I'd eventually work it out but it makes more sense this way. Edited July 19, 2014 by Delightful 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of nowhere Posted July 19, 2014 Report Share Posted July 19, 2014 So Darkfriends don't necessarily have any kind of magic? And Warders can sense Darkfriends but not Halfmen? Or both? Thanks Swimmingly . Probably if I kept reading I'd eventually work it out but it makes more sense this way. darkfriends are 100% regular humans. they don't have any special powers. they are basically members of a secret society. Of course, a channeler can become a darkfriend like everyone else, so there are darkfriends channelers; but it's not something they aquired by becoming darkfriends. there's an exception in that a few darkfriends very dedicated can become grey man and acquire some special powers, but that's something you won't see until later books so i won't spoiler here. If I remember correctly, warders and aes sedai can sense halfmen and trollocs and other shadowspawn (there are a few others you won't see until further books, like the dragkar). they can do it because they have the taint of the dark one. they cannot sense darkfriends, as they are 100% regular humans; unless they are extremely dedicated, in which case they carry some taint too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tien'sPetLurg Posted July 19, 2014 Report Share Posted July 19, 2014 I gave you an up vote for willing to try it for a few books. That's pretty impressive. You might try the audiobook version. Those narrators really helped bring those characters to "life" for me.I haven't gone through a re-read of the series yet. When I was finished I swore that I wouldn't...... and yet......... I'm just about ready to do it again. I miss the characters. They kind of became like imaginary friends I guess. Wow. That is a sad reality. hahahaha 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasimir Posted July 19, 2014 Report Share Posted July 19, 2014 Is there some reason for this growing need for not all Trollocs to be shown as evil pawns? I'm just curious because I heard the same criticism levelled at orcs in Lord of the Rings, and it frankly never really bothered me. I don't want ethical complexity in all my books and I'm perfectly happy to have Always Lawful Evil Trollocs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of nowhere Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 (edited) Is there some reason for this growing need for not all Trollocs to be shown as evil pawns? I'm just curious because I heard the same criticism levelled at orcs in Lord of the Rings, and it frankly never really bothered me. I don't want ethical complexity in all my books and I'm perfectly happy to have Always Lawful Evil Trollocs. Well, it depends on how they are characterized. I think a lot of criticism on the topic comes from the evil humanoid races were treated in dungeons & dragons: "this race like to kill and torture other people. they pillage nearby settlements for loot and slaves. oh, did we mention that they are EEEVIL? of course it's totally ok to attack them on sight, if you are playing the kick-the-door style or if you're too lazy to come up with a better reason they should be enemies" now copy-paste that for several dozens creature types. that's totally sloppy characterization here. why are those creatures so hideously evil that it's ok to attack on sigh any member of their race? and if they are not so evil and many of them could be decent fellows, is it still ok to use them as fodder for the party? Manny D&D players lamented on that, and so when they are presented with an "always evil" race they tend to twist their mouth and say aww, not another one of those... At least that's my issue with the whole "always evil" races, and I read on forums of other people having the same complaint. Not sure how big a percentage of readers we actualy make. However, if a race is properly characterized with a good reason to be evil, and there aren't already a score of those in the world, then I have no problems with it. orcs in lotr, trollocs in wot, koloss in mistborn, all those have a perfectly good reason to be the way they are and serve as enemy mooks. Basically, it's oonly the D&D monster manuals that failed at making them believable. either they spent all their time on playtesting the game mechanics and not enough on creating a good backstory, or they figured that any master who wanted more depth could invent one for himself and/or houserule/homebrew all the races to better fit the kind of world he wanted. Edited July 20, 2014 by king of nowhere 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasimir Posted July 21, 2014 Report Share Posted July 21, 2014 Well, it depends on how they are characterized. I think a lot of criticism on the topic comes from the evil humanoid races were treated in dungeons & dragons: "this race like to kill and torture other people. they pillage nearby settlements for loot and slaves. oh, did we mention that they are EEEVIL? of course it's totally ok to attack them on sight, if you are playing the kick-the-door style or if you're too lazy to come up with a better reason they should be enemies" now copy-paste that for several dozens creature types. that's totally sloppy characterization here. why are those creatures so hideously evil that it's ok to attack on sigh any member of their race? and if they are not so evil and many of them could be decent fellows, is it still ok to use them as fodder for the party? Manny D&D players lamented on that, and so when they are presented with an "always evil" race they tend to twist their mouth and say aww, not another one of those... At least that's my issue with the whole "always evil" races, and I read on forums of other people having the same complaint. Not sure how big a percentage of readers we actualy make. However, if a race is properly characterized with a good reason to be evil, and there aren't already a score of those in the world, then I have no problems with it. orcs in lotr, trollocs in wot, koloss in mistborn, all those have a perfectly good reason to be the way they are and serve as enemy mooks. Basically, it's oonly the D&D monster manuals that failed at making them believable. either they spent all their time on playtesting the game mechanics and not enough on creating a good backstory, or they figured that any master who wanted more depth could invent one for himself and/or houserule/homebrew all the races to better fit the kind of world he wanted. Fair enough, and thank you for the explanation. I didn't particularly get party members mourning the moral status of the "always evil" races, so I've never really understood the deal with them. I can see why it would get on the nerves of some. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argent Posted July 21, 2014 Report Share Posted July 21, 2014 The one redeeming, in a way, quality of the trollocs is that they are made that way. As in, artificially. By accident on top of that - Aginor, the Forsaken mad genius who designed and created pretty much all of the Shadowspawn, was responsible for the trollocs as well, but they didn't quite work out the way he had planned them (I imagine he wasn't shooting for cannon fodder, but for a race made up entirely of supersoldiers). Oh, also, when Robert Jordan was planning and writing those books, Tolkien's orcs were still pretty new and fashionable concept in fantasy - neither the readers nor the writers had grown tired of reading/writing about entire races that are mindlessly evil and exist (in great numbers) only to be a threat to the entire world. In Jordan's defense though, he kind of gives a reason for all those creatures to be unquestioningly evil - Aginor made them so. The Wheel of Time Wiki has a solid article on the various types of Shadowspawn. I wouldn't read anything other than the section on trollocs and myrddraal / halfmen, however - those two are the only sections free of spoilers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
figsandmice Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 All these posts and no one mentioned Narg? "Narg no hurt!" On topic, I always thought Trollocs the grunts to oppose the armies of Light and not much more. Fades, Draghkar and Soulless are more of a threat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WayneSpren Posted October 8, 2015 Report Share Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) I'm currently halfway through Eye of the World, and I have to say, Trollocs seem a bit bland. I'm finding them to be very generic monster-creatures for the good guys to fight, but I literally don't find them scary at all, almost more like a giant plot device than anything. I know I'm only something like 3% into the series, but I was just wondering if this is a normal reaction/do they get any scarier? As "generic enemies" I actually prefer stormtroopers and/or "enemy soldiers". Edited October 8, 2015 by WayneSpren 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.