Discussion in 'David Gemmell' started by cairnsbythesea, Mar 16, 2006.
Druss = Russ or ruse?
I've always said it to rhyme with Russ. If that's what you're asking...?
Thank you for your replies. I guess that, as I rhymn it with Ruse it is probably because I don't like the dog next door who's name is Russs.
I pronounce it with Russ, Fuss, Bus etc.
I've been trying to find book two in this series - I read the first one and loved it and I never read a series out of order.
I use russ myself.
Maybe if you had a Scottish accent you'd rhyme it with ruse... I'm not sure.
I had alway imagined him being originally from the Great Britian area, given that he had to cross oceans to reach Rowenna. Scotland would certainly be a place, at that time, that would cover the descriptions given.
Druss always seems scottish to me too, I think its the use of laddie that does it I have always used russ but nokia at a scot I find it impossable to ryhme it with ruse
Hmm, maybe I'm thinking of how you'd say it with an Irish accent then...
i think hes scottish
Always been Druss for me, to rhyme with bus.
It is rhymed with Russ, I heard and interview with DG and he said the name came from a cross between his name and a co-workers who was called Russ.
David + Russ = Druss
(or Ravid, but thats just silly)
Since this seems the most accurately titled thread to discuss Legend, I'm posting here.
First of all, the name Druss (in my opinion) could not rhyme with bus. That's just too wimpy. Nor could Druss rhyme with wuss. No, Druss rhymes with moose. Druss the Legend! Druss the Legend! Druss the Legend!
As I started reading, I thought "This is the kind of book I'd have liked when I was thirteen... when I only wanted heroes and blood... when I did not care for themes of social justice, theology, politics, or familial bonds." The only reason I kept reading is that a friend really, really, really wanted me to read it... and he loaned me the book.
I did not find Gemmell's use of language particularly interesting or even satisfying. I thought the plot was transparent. The sub-plots were laughable... they reminded me of early 20th century serial pulp. His characters were not nearly as developed as I would have liked.
I finished Legend yesterday... and against my better judgement, I highly enjoyed it! It was unclouded in theme and structure. I knew exactly what was happening all of the time. I knew clearly who was good, who was selfish, who was maturing, and who was bad. Druss was a legend. Rek was redeemed. The Thirty were selfless. Orrin was repentant. Gilad was home.
I resonated with Druss' patriotic rhetoric. I enjoyed his uncompromising style.
Gemmell did not thrill me with his writing skills, but he tells a very enjoyable tale.
It was his first book. He has written books that are much better writing wise.
Also of course GRRM fans wont enjoy Gemmell that wanted to tell simpler,down to earth heroic stories about violent anti-heroes,normal people that arent nobles,princes.
To me he is a perfect antidote against the lame fat series that take themselves too seriously and only care about world building that takes 10 books.....
Hehe, I like the way you think. Most of the time I prefer one hero instead of 17 like Eriksson.
and its fun.
Hey if Erikson and co could write characters like Gemmell i could read them too.
I dont want to read about 10 flat character for 600-800 pages.
Great adventure is a lot of fun. That's mostly why i read fantasy.
I couldn't agree more. So many popular fantasy writers fill their books with boring world building, and sub character dialogue, which can be tolerable if it is done in an intelligent way. But if it is not handled correctly it just gets in the way of the story, (Wheel of Time instantly comes to mind), and ends up taking from, rather than adding to, the plot. Legend is a great feat of story telling. Fast paced, with interesting characters. The world building is kept to a minimum and the story benifits because of it. "Legend" succinctly describes, both this masterpiece, and the author who created it.
Separate names with a comma.