| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Jelennet |
Posted - 08 Sep 2012 : 02:50:25
I've looked at El's pictures at the FR wiki. On some of them Elminster looks like he could woo my seventy-year-old grandma. On the other hand his lover Simbul looks like she is still fairly young woman (about my age). Yeah, I know that they are both veeery old, but when I imagine them together it still gives me a creepy feeling. He looks like he could be her grandpa.
I think that they should have done El younger or Simbul older.
I'havn't read all Elminster book, only the first ones. Is it all as creepy as it seems?
Or when they are together El transforms himself into a young man? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 11 Sep 2012 : 22:35:25
Wow- so much love in this thread.... LOL!! I'd say that my definition of "lovers" falls somehere between the sex- def and the "just VERY close snuggly" def. I've dated only a few people in my life, and of those few, I'd only call two of them lovers- my hubby, and the young man I dated before him, with whom I shared some very intimate physical contact, but no sex. (We were physically together for only a week, and the rest of the relationship was carried out over long distance, but the feelings were still there.) So it depends on the people invovled and the level of trust and closeness, I thnik. |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 11 Sep 2012 : 21:23:59
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Bane
Was it a manly hug? 
Well knowing Ed, it was just a good ole hug....a thanks alot, I really appreciate you type of hug suitable for any and all genders |
| Markustay |
Posted - 11 Sep 2012 : 18:12:40
Yes it was.
Just long enough without being uncomfortable (not one of those weird 'drunk friend at the bar' hugs).
EDIT: And BTW, just to accentuate the point of my bringing this up - I am one of those people that HATES to be touched. It was a HUGE problem for me when I was younger (try dating...), and I am still very uncomfortable touching anyone but my children (even as a child, I couldn't stand parents of grandparents touching me). Me touching anyone is a really big deal - I actually have anxiety attacks when I have to attend funerals (yeah, I know, I sound a bit nuts...)
So my point is, me asking Ed for a hug is WAY out of character for me. The man just has a way of putting you at complete ease. |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 11 Sep 2012 : 18:11:33
Was it a manly hug? |
| Markustay |
Posted - 11 Sep 2012 : 17:25:15
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by The Red Walker
quote:
Originally posted by Gabrielle_H
quote:
Originally posted by The Hidden Lord
Exactly. Erik Scott de Bie and I are also lovers, because we share our intimate feelings for the Realms on this forum, and I "love component" his Neverwinter book.
Is it suddenly warm in this thread? *fan fan fan*
Since you and most scribes here Love Ed...your list of Lovers just exploded
I say this with absolute confidence in my own sexuality: Ed is a man who definitely inspires love. 
QFT
He is the very first man (that I barely know) that I asked for a hug. A handshake from Ed just didn't cut it, IMO. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 11 Sep 2012 : 14:48:13
quote:
Originally posted by combatmedic
He was also the Simbul's teacher...
He was "teacher" to all later Chosen for a time. In "Elminster in Hell", IIRC, tthere was a flashback of how he met Simbul. That was already after she saw Red Wizard in every shadow and got a reputation for this. So they started with fighting a little. |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 11 Sep 2012 : 02:46:20
Editors changing words and even whole concepts happens quite often depending on the work or publication.
Neither is it strange for the author deciding at a later time to separate a single character into two more distinct characters. Or for accidentally leaving a line concerning another character in this write-up. It happens, it's not a bad thing. |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 11 Sep 2012 : 02:37:05
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Expecting a personal FB message from Ed on a somewhat minor point might be expecting a little much. Not because he's above doing that, but only because he's a VERY busy man.
Why not go ask him in his Ask Ed thread? There, no question is too big or too small.
Cheers
Malcolm had the question, not I. He wondered about whether Ed had simply corrected something that an editor had changed in the ‘All About Elminster’ article.
The secondary question of whether such a small correction would constitute a retcon might be interesting to a canonista. I find it just interesting enough to say ‘meh, looks like a wee retcon’ and move on.
If I were going to take up Greenwood’s time with questions, there are a lot of other things I'd ask way before Elminster's private life came into the discussion.
Hmmm…I may give him some other questions…
|
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 11 Sep 2012 : 01:54:56
Expecting a personal FB message from Ed on a somewhat minor point might be expecting a little much. Not because he's above doing that, but only because he's a VERY busy man.
Why not go ask him in his Ask Ed thread? There, no question is too big or too small.
Cheers |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 10 Sep 2012 : 23:49:55
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm
combatmedic, re. Ed's DRAGON 110 article: we always have to remember that editors stand between a writer and the reader, changing a word here and a phrase there, sometimes extrapolating/"punching up" and sometimes chopping words or sentences or entire paragraphs. What appeared in DRAGON 110 may not have been Ed's original wording, but someone's changes.
I think we all sometimes forget that, and use the word "retcon" a little too quickly.
Ed was just a freelancer when writing for DRAGON, albeit a trusted and respected one, never a staffer. He wasn't onstage to defend his prose, didn't get to "see and second guess" changes, and doesn't have a veto over edits. As he has said many times.
Although everyone should get edited, I think a lot of small harms have been done to the Realms over the years by all sorts of people, making little editorial changes to Ed without knowing the bigger picture Ed sees.
I'd say he corrected, in this case, rather than retconning.
Maybe so, but I'm going to doubt that unless Ed Greenwood sends me a FB message telling me otherwise.
Like I said before, he may have simply changed his mind. 'Retcon' isn't a dirty word for me. It's not as if we are talking about a major setting change
"There were always three moons made of cheese orbiting Abeir-Toril, those earlier notes regarding Selune were messed up by the editors..." |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 10 Sep 2012 : 23:23:07
quote:
Originally posted by The Red Walker
quote:
Originally posted by Gabrielle_H
quote:
Originally posted by The Hidden Lord
Exactly. Erik Scott de Bie and I are also lovers, because we share our intimate feelings for the Realms on this forum, and I "love component" his Neverwinter book.
Is it suddenly warm in this thread? *fan fan fan*
Since you and most scribes here Love Ed...your list of Lovers just exploded
I say this with absolute confidence in my own sexuality: Ed is a man who definitely inspires love.
Cheers |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 10 Sep 2012 : 21:42:35
quote:
Originally posted by Gabrielle_H
quote:
Originally posted by The Hidden Lord
Exactly. Erik Scott de Bie and I are also lovers, because we share our intimate feelings for the Realms on this forum, and I "love component" his Neverwinter book.
Is it suddenly warm in this thread? *fan fan fan*
Since you and most scribes here Love Ed...your list of Lovers just exploded |
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 Sep 2012 : 19:50:02
I wouldn't broaden my definition to 'people who love the same thing'.
When that 'thing' is another person (and even sometimes when its not), usually the exact opposite emotion is engendered.
I believe a certain level of intimacy need be involved, although not necessarily sex (in the procreative fashion). I also think sex has to be a possibility, even if not actually performed... but I think I may be trying to define it a bit too precisely now. By the same token, 'sex' can be performed without the people being lovers.
Also, in a fantasy setting, the definition tends to broaden regardless. I don't think you would call two Orcs who 'mate for life' lovers, but you might use that term on Elves who have been extremely 'close' for centuries, regardless of what their physical relationship might be.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
@MT: TMI much?
I hide nothing from no-one.
Secrets are like weapons - they can be turned against you.  |
| Malcolm |
Posted - 10 Sep 2012 : 17:42:04
combatmedic, re. Ed's DRAGON 110 article: we always have to remember that editors stand between a writer and the reader, changing a word here and a phrase there, sometimes extrapolating/"punching up" and sometimes chopping words or sentences or entire paragraphs. What appeared in DRAGON 110 may not have been Ed's original wording, but someone's changes.
I think we all sometimes forget that, and use the word "retcon" a little too quickly.
Ed was just a freelancer when writing for DRAGON, albeit a trusted and respected one, never a staffer. He wasn't onstage to defend his prose, didn't get to "see and second guess" changes, and doesn't have a veto over edits. As he has said many times.
Although everyone should get edited, I think a lot of small harms have been done to the Realms over the years by all sorts of people, making little editorial changes to Ed without knowing the bigger picture Ed sees.
I'd say he corrected, in this case, rather than retconning. |
| Gabrielle_H |
Posted - 10 Sep 2012 : 17:15:17
quote:
Originally posted by The Hidden Lord
Exactly. Erik Scott de Bie and I are also lovers, because we share our intimate feelings for the Realms on this forum, and I "love component" his Neverwinter book.
Is it suddenly warm in this thread? *fan fan fan*
|
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 10 Sep 2012 : 15:30:38
@HL: We are indeed lovers, though not of each other. We have a mutual love of the Realms. This is the "devotee" definition. If the text in question had said "Storm and Elminster were both lovers of Mystra," then it would be the same definition being used.
@CM: Agreed. A balance between fact and mystery is optimal.
Cheers |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 10 Sep 2012 : 06:40:06
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
@MT: TMI much?
@Lord Bane: Without question, that's the automatic association that I put in my head. "Lovers" means "people who have sex." But that isn't necessarily the intended meaning of labeling people as "lovers." The only common denominator to the various definitions seems to be the "love" component.
Cheers
I'm still pretty sure EG retconned it.
Or maybe he decided that his language in the Dragon article was confusing, so he felt the need to clarify?
Then again…
The article isn't necessarily accurate and correct in all respects. Ed Greenwood is telling the reader about Elminster. He uses a device that he has often used,an imaginary meeting with the character. Elminster doesn't state 'Yeah, I bagged Storm Silverhand." Grewnood, after the 'interview', relates that Elminster and Storm were lovers as part of an incomplete biography. The bio contains a number of questions, points of speculation, rumors, and conjectures. That left Greenwood room to alter or rework stuff in the future.
Something I like about AD&D 1E FR was that Greenwood (and I suppose Grubb?) make good use of a subjective, narrative style in a lot of the text. That approach leaves more room for interpretation than an objective, fact-based, it-is-just-so sort of approach. Instead of loads of ‘hard facts’ we get enough facts to provide a good framework and then a lot of rumors, stories, suggestions, possibilities, etc. It is a balance of objective and subjective information. No ‘facts’ and all narrative isn’t a game setting but a writer’s working list; while all facts and no narrative is playable but likely to seem boring and rigid.
|
| The Hidden Lord |
Posted - 10 Sep 2012 : 06:01:41
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
@MT: TMI much?
@Lord Bane: Without question, that's the automatic association that I put in my head. "Lovers" means "people who have sex." But that isn't necessarily the intended meaning of labeling people as "lovers." The only common denominator to the various definitions seems to be the "love" component.
Cheers
Exactly. Erik Scott de Bie and I are also lovers, because we share our intimate feelings for the Realms on this forum, and I "love component" his Neverwinter book. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 10 Sep 2012 : 05:09:04
@MT: TMI much?
@Lord Bane: Without question, that's the automatic association that I put in my head. "Lovers" means "people who have sex." But that isn't necessarily the intended meaning of labeling people as "lovers." The only common denominator to the various definitions seems to be the "love" component.
Cheers |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 09 Sep 2012 : 20:16:36
I would say in this case "sexual intercourse" is physical contact in case of either procreation or in case your of equal gender extreme intimacy, not just hugs and "snuggling".
Though i think this drifts now in philosofical debates and i can see Mr. Freud looking around the corner.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 09 Sep 2012 : 20:05:04
Define 'sexual intercourse'. If 'making love' means the act of procreation, then doesn't that mean gay people can't be lovers?
You see, it all depends upon your definition of various things.
I've 'made love' plenty of times (to women LOL), but I rarely engage in normal intercourse. I actually don't enjoy it that much (YES, I just admitted that on a public forum). There are much more intimate things I'd prefer to do with a partner; sometimes 'snuggling' is at the top of the list (sometimes). I would consider all of those women 'lovers', and yet the list of women I had intercourse with is very short. |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 09 Sep 2012 : 19:57:32
I see the issue with the wording may be that nowadays the majority of people put being in love with someboday equal to having sexual intercourse.
Given the fact that Elminster does have a way with women and the way it was worded in the Dragon text makes one immediatly think: "Yes, they shared the bed."
Mind you non native speakers or people who do not may have a higher education in the english language and are not well written will first think of the sex and then of the emotional intimacy because think of it. Would you say that your a lover with somebody if the feeling is just on a emotional level or would you use it when your having physical intercourse with the person?
No need to out yourself though Mr. de Bie, it is just a theoretical question |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 09 Sep 2012 : 19:47:25
Speaking of the word "lovers," I will say that while we often interpret that word to mean that a couple engages in sexual congress, that's only one of four definitions of the word (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lover). To me, the primary implication of the word is emotional intimacy (or a desire for it), which may or may not be sexual.
In my Realms work, Lady Ilira and Lady Lorien Dawnbringer were "lovers" for some years in the 1470s, but they never so much as touched one another flesh-to-flesh (mostly because they couldn't). Which is not to imply nothing ever happened, but it supports the concept of being a "lover" in the Realms without actually doing the horizontal shuffle.
Cheers |
| Blueblade |
Posted - 09 Sep 2012 : 03:49:55
Whoops! Clean forgot about that evil family in Falconfar. My apologies, Dennis. Point taken.
BB |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 09 Sep 2012 : 03:46:12
I know on some level I should not reply, social norms of FR are not the social norms of Earth.
The society or at least parts of them are very liberated as to whom the kiss and join with. Males with males, females with females, and yes family with family. I am not sure it was a selling factor, in fact I suspect it was not. It though is part of culture that occurs.
The part I dread most, in RW history there are examples of incest expected as part of ruling, often occurred even when it was not. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 09 Sep 2012 : 03:27:15
Falconfar. Between a brother and a sister (whose names escape me). The sex scene was even shown.
Why on Toril does it sound like a slap? Unless you view incest as something WRONG and DISGUSTING? [And for the record, I don't.] Given the time and context where those instances of incest occurred, it's fairly understandable. But just because something like incest can be justified does not mean it wouldn't invite dislike from other people. |
| Blueblade |
Posted - 09 Sep 2012 : 02:51:05
Sources, please?
That's a pretty strong comment to make, if you can't back it up.
Incest where in Ed's non-FR fiction, exactly?
Or for that matter, in his FR fiction (Mirt was Asper's guardian, not blood kin, and she chose him when of age, and Elminster is not blood-related to any of the Seven).
Reads like a gratuitous slap to me. 
BB |
| Dennis |
Posted - 09 Sep 2012 : 01:44:18
Storm and (foster father) Elminster. Never liked that pair. Though incest or near-incest is something to be expected from Ed's fiction, FR or non-FR. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 08 Sep 2012 : 23:57:23
For some reason, I simply do not count that particular avatar, and that was also a different situation (it was before he became her Chosen).
We have Midnight, we have that 'special girl' that the power of Mystryl entered when Karsus fell, and we also have another 'flesh & blood' incarnation of Mystra, which was captured by Sharens (it was in one of the first Elminster books - maybe Temptation?)
I think these may all be 'one & the same' - that Mystra maintains a 'mortal shell' for whatever reason (perhaps like a USB drive she can 'plugin' and reset her interface?) I can't quite place my finger on all of that, but there is some reason why Mystra/Mystryl MUST keep a tether to mortality, and why there is always one of these 'meat bags' around.
But that has nothing to do with the 'love making' her and El do now that he is Chosen - I think that takes place within The Weave, and is far more spiritual. One might even suggest that 'religious ecstasy' (rapture) is actually a form of orgasm.
So perhaps this 'spiritual loving' is more like communing on a very deep level, one that we can barely understand (its like Elven communion, which is closely related). Touching intimately may be the best way to establish the report, but that is just to get things started, and is almost like 'spiritual foreplay'.
As I said, so many females in Elminster's life may fall in love with him because he has a 'beautiful soul' - they no longer even see the shell he wears on the outside. And to take this a step further, I truly doubt this is just limited to females. There may be a very good reason why Vangerdehast is so damn uncomfortable around the man. |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 08 Sep 2012 : 21:59:19
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
From the new series, I gather that Storm wanted more, but Elminster (nicely) brushed her advances aside.
Also, people who can literally become avatars of themselves and enter 'The Weave' (which is canon - see the Evermeet novel, amongst others) can 'make love' on an entirely non-physical level. I really doubt Mystra is making a sweaty meat-bag avatar for El to hump - what they do is a more 'spiritual' thing.
IMO, of course. Thats just how I see it.
I do think she was as gross as all that...but El did indeed walk alongside and physically make it with a flesh and blood Avatar for a long long stretch of time
Wasnt it Myrjala Darkeyes? So I guess you missed a meatbag?
Ed: sp |
|
|
