King's Quest Companions and Roberta Williams

[Baggins]

So I went through the acknowledgements and information for the King's Quest Companions and reception information discovered interesting information involving Roberta's involvement with the books. Which I'll discuss here, and draw comparison to the novel trilogy.

As I've mentioned before the first edition was apparently read over by Roberta Williams, and she enjoyed it, before it went to publication. This is stated in a blurb by her on the back of the book. Although its unclear how much impact she had with the writing directly. As is stated in the introduction/story Peter Spears had contacted Roberta on several occasions (interviews and such), and thus gained some direct contact with many important Sierra officials, including Ken Williams himself. This probably accounts for why Sierra gave him permission to write the book in the first place, as well as how Roberta got a chance to preview it.

Well, turns out by second edition she was involved more directly with the book. According to the acknowledgements she had influence on the material. She had apparently supplied him with information about KQV story, as it was being developed. By third edition she was supplying material for KQ6 as well. 3rd Edition includes yet another blurb quote about opinion of the book, and that it was a good source of information for anyone who wanted to know more about the King's Quest world. I've mentioned before that he also involved Jane Jensen in the creation of the novel as well, eluki bes shahar wrote the novel, and he wrote the introductory chapter before it.

Now, moving onto the novels. Other than being signed off on by unknown sierra officials. It didn't have any direct involvement by Roberta Williams nor Ken Williams. Roberta had apparently read them, and didn't think they were great. According to Ken Williams;

Sierra had nothing to do with the Kings Quest novels, beyond licensing a company the permission to write them. I asked Roberta if she read them, and she says she thinks she did, and that she thought they were ok, not great. -Ken W, Sierra Gamers 12/8/2003

So if there was a discussion as to which book was more relevant to Roberta Williams there is no contest, the King's Quest Companion was far beyond the novels in relevance to her. She had more direct control with them, she had read them and enjoyed them, and she even contributed to their there creation.

The novels on the other hand she had no input, and she didn't particularly find them all that interesting.

This means that the Companion was closer to her vision for the series (though she may have had a different view of the cosmology of the world, her vision saw the games taking place on earth, while Spears had it occuring in another universe, and she may not have seen Hagatha as related to Manannan). But overall it was closer to how she viewed the series.

[kindofdoon]

Good information, Baggins. May I ask how you learned that "...[Roberta] didn't particularly find [the novels] all that interesting"?

[Baggins]

Ken's quote should in the post.
Here it is again;

Sierra had nothing to do with the Kings Quest novels, beyond licensing a company the permission to write them. I asked Roberta if she read them, and she says she thinks she did, and that she thought they were ok, not great. -Ken W, Sierra Gamers 12/8/2003

I discovered it reading through threads at Sierra Gamers.

But ya, one can see that the companions are more 'canon' than the novels (this explains why so many KQ developers referenced them). Whereas the novels never really registered a blip to the developers. Just Sierra the company acknowledged them (see Interaction Magazine).

[kindofdoon]

Oh, whoops, I missed that blurb in the first post. Thanks again.

[Baggins]

Well it comes off as a surprise that there are so many fans who seem to take the novel trilogy to a greater degree than the King's Quest Companions. Some even go so far to ignore the companion while accepting the novels.

When in actuality the Companions had a greater standing with the Great Dreamer herself (and under more direct control/influence apparently in comparison).

[kindofdoon]

the Great Dreamer

What is the source of that title?

[Baggins]

Derek Karlavaegen calls her that in a couple of chapters, the first is his discussion of Eye Between the Worlds, and the second was in the introductory chapter for KQ7 material. Peter Spears might have used it in the introduction as well.

Basically the idea is Derek doesn't know her name or identity. He just knows that she is somehow dreaming about his world (that is how she learned of the world to create her computer games), and in time these dreams begin to directly influence his world, causing the world to change, and certain events to take place (such as KQ7).

[KatieHal]

Well it comes off as a surprise that there are so many fans who seem to take the novel trilogy to a greater degree than the King's Quest Companions. Some even go so far to ignore the companion while accepting the novels.

I don't think it's hard to see why. The Companions bring in so many continuity problems, it's much easier to dismiss them than the novels, which AFAIK don't really conflict with the games at all.

[Delling]

Well it comes off as a surprise that there are so many fans who seem to take the novel trilogy to a greater degree than the King's Quest Companions. Some even go so far to ignore the companion while accepting the novels.

I think I've encountered this argument before. It would need verifying but I think the case was that the later companions went further afield from Roberta's intentions and that she was less involved and more nonplussed with them after some point (IIRC (which I probably don't) it was after the companion with KQ5 or 6 in it).

[Enchantermon]

Well it comes off as a surprise that there are so many fans who seem to take the novel trilogy to a greater degree than the King's Quest Companions. Some even go so far to ignore the companion while accepting the novels.

It may be simply because the Companions actually change some details concerning what actually happened in the games, which I never really understood. I haven't read the novels, but perhaps they don't alter any of the game events.
That said, I'm not taking sides; since it's interesting that you can't really reconcile the games with the Companions, I haven't taken a stand on the issue.

EDIT: Erm, yeah, what Katie said.

[Baggins]

It would need verifying but I think the case was that the later companions went further afield from Roberta's intentions and that she was less involved and more nonplussed with them after some point (IIRC (which I probably don't) it was after the companion with KQ5 or 6 in it).

Well the thing is there are only 4 editions. She was involved at least up to the 3rd edition according to acknowledgements and back blurb. So your arguement is a bit of a strawman. Since at least 3/4 books had Roberta's invovlement.

I don't know about the King's Quest: Authorized Guide material in 4th edition (though he definitely was receiving behind the scenes information from the development team, according to the book). I'd think that the Authorized Guide probably has a more detailed acknowledgements specific to that game. Its unclear in the Companion, 4th edition, as it reprints the 3rd edition version of the acknowledgments.

That being said, KQ7 the game may not have even had much Roberta involvement, and may have been primarily Lorelei Shannon offering the information and working with Peter and his brother on the Authorized Guide. The hintbook chapter concerning KQ7 mentions quite a few things that were changed and cut from the final released KQ7 as well as development facts (which shows he was in contact with the developers on it).

Anyone with the authorized guide care to let is in on who was was acknowledged and how?

concerning what actually happened in the games, which I never really understood.

The "changes" which I assume you are referring to some of the differences in the KQ6 novelization actually have more to do with development changes, as stated in mentioned introductory chapter before the novelization. He was given development story material about the games, but the games puzzles/story details were changed before the game's release. The story had already been written and went to the publisher and couldn't be changed to fit with what turned out in the finished product of the game. So the additional chapter was written to explain the differences from an in-universe perspective. This is similar to how even movie novelizations do not necessarily remain exactly like the finished edited movie. (because changes are made before the novel can be rewritten).

Actually a similar thing occured in KQV novelization in which Cedric is turned to stone according to the novelization, but in the PC version of the game its just implied he was knocked out/killed. The NES version used the older development script and explains he was turned to stone.
I

don't think it's hard to see why. The Companions bring in so many continuity problems, it's much easier to dismiss them than the novels, which AFAIK don't really conflict with the games at all.

or maybe you mean the account of Edgar being Lolotte's "son"? But no one knowing who his father was? Well hate to break it to you, but that's nearly how its portrayed within KQ4. She is said to be his son, and no one knows who his father is. KQ7 later retconned KQ4. But from people's perspectives including Genesta, Edgar was "Lolotte's son".

I've seen some people complain because the companion says that Valanice was more than just a 'maiden', but actually royalty before she married Graham guess what that's even stated specifically in See No Weevil and Kingdom of Sorrow. So if you view it as an ''error', then both companion and the novel trilogy are guilty of that 'error'. The novels even go so far to claim that Graham was a "nobody" before he became king, and in comparison was not of noble stock, as Valanice was.

Most of these differences are minor at best, and do not affect continuity to any degree. Actually it might be said that the novel trilogy affects continuity to a higher degree in that it places two stories into a period (between KQ2 and KQ3) that some official accounts state was not a peaceful time (I.E. disasters started early). Other differences are written to be "Derek's perspective", or perspectives of people he talked to, but he is quick to point out that they are just "rumors and opinion". Thus he has a way out of any thing that might differ from what actually happened. This is similar to how historians on earth do not always agree on what  "happened' in our own history, and two authors can be in conflict with there accounts on such things as "why Cold War started", etc.

That being said the continuity between the games isn't even perfect. With certain details changing between the games including geography of Daventry, and even layout of Castle Daventry, among other things.

On a related note, the novel trilogy has continuity issues as well, such as suggesting Graham has blond hair, or another that implies that Alexander was older than Rosella by a couple of years. Or that that the magic mirror had been in Daventry's ownership for 200 years rather than 500 (i.e. manual), that alexander returned to Daventry after he was eighteen (rather than "almost eighteen as in KQ3"), that Valanice travelled to Daventry from Kolyma with Matilda her lady in waiting (which in KQ2 we are only shown Graham and Valanice returning), Alexander is out having an adventure saving the kingdom during the period in which KQV/6 takes place. However KQ6 material states he was suffering from too much melancholy to actually do much of anything in the "six months" between KQ5 and 6, or the idea that Daventry can go bankrupt (yet it has gold coins and magic chest in the games), among other things.

Seriously if anyone thinks the novel trilogy is more accurate to the games than the Companions, they are deluding themselves.

Most of those continuity errors in the novel trilogy are minor, and companion's "errors" are the same kind of minor problems (even more so). But at least the Companions attempted a convincing explanation for its errors, tied into real-world historical documentation problems (caused by game development issues).

That said, I'm not taking sides; since it's interesting that you can't really reconcile the games with the Companions, I haven't taken a stand on the issue.

This is actually patentedly untrue. Actually 99.9% of the companions novelizations is just a near exact adaptation of the game events in written form, with additional thoughts by the writers discussing backstory and motivations. This additional stuff occurs off camera in points in time before and after the games. Often these stick to game manual information while expanding on the info.

There is less than one percent of the material that conflicts with on screen material in any way, the book usually points out when things are different and give a lore based explanation telling the difference both real world and inuniverse. Believe me there are not many of these kinds of errors, not any more than are between the games, between the manuals, or within the novel trilogy and the games. Anyone who claims otherwise is using hyperbole and probably haven't read the companions for themselves or all he way through.

[crayauchtin]

Do people actually ignore the Companion in their view of canon? I haven't heard of anyone taking the novels over the Companion in their view of what's canon.

[Baggins]

Lots of people ignore the companion. Probably because they are obscure (no less than the novels of course).  Plus there is a lot of misconceptions as to what the companion's contain, and how they relate to the games. The truth being told that as far things go they just repeat what the games say, but with greater detail (and expand on things that the games never go into with various in-universe "rumors and theories" so there was an explanation if something inadvertently was contradicted later on.  this was actually pretty rare, and when it happened it was because the games themselves had contradicted each other on the related point, for example the fact that KQ4-KQ6 material specifically stated Lolotte was Edgar's mother) and speculation on who the father might have been (however, it never said specifically who the father was, just various rumors). So he left a way out. Thus KQ7' retcon didn't affect anything much, other than the admittance that people who thought Edgar was her son, were just misinformed/had misconceptions (much in the same way the matter came at a surprise to Rosella even).

However, TSL team members have said they have purposely chosen to ignore/ignore most of the companion, because they felt it contradicted aspects of what they think King's Quest stands for, and their own vision of the universe. They have said they chose to utilize elements of the novel trilogy instead, since in there view it didn't contradict anything (granted that's a bit of a misconception of the novels in and of itself). Granted most of the material from the novels probably would have been referenced in sections of TSL that were intended to take place in Daventry, i.E. Castle Daventry for example. But that's stuff has been cut as far as I know.

However, the truth is, as far as the game material goes in the companion its pretty much follows the games directly, without any deviation. The only exception was in the KQ6 novelization, that had a few minor differences but that was because of changes in development and released games.

To quote the book section discussing the development of the KQ6 novelization;

"As is often the case when I receive something concerning the lives of Daventry's royal family, I called Roberta Williams, the woman who created and authors of the King's Quest series. Roberta was out of the country at the time, so I talked with one of her colleagues, Jane Jensen...game in progress was nearly identical with the narrative...the only differences which we noticed were that...Alexander discovered coded directions through the catacombs engraved in various places...Alexander's "drink me" bottle was empty and Valanice's face is the one on the copper coin of Daventry...In Robert Williams..., the carvings in the catacombs don't exist, there indeed is a potion in the small bottle, and King's Graham's profile is on the coin. That's all; as differences go, mismatching socks are more significant".

Note that in order to fit these differences that had already went to the publisher, he explained them away as being differences in Derek's account and differences with Roberta's dreams. But most importantly he pointed out that they were very insignificant differences, that didn't actually affect the main events of the game. The game's story itself is actually fairly consistent with the game's events (with the exception of the above differences, that do not actually change the story).

The KQ7 novelization actually adds an extra scene not seen in the game (Rosella's encounter with Attis), but doesn't contradict anything either. The scene was cut from the final released game, but the sound files for the scene are still in the game files.

So overall there isn't really anything that even needs to be 'reconciled' with the games themselves in the Companion (as few things actually conflict with the games in meaningful way, that changes the main facts of the games). The same can't be said for some of the material in the novel trilogy that actually does contradict with major in game details (such as the money/gold chest issue, or suggestion that Rosella and Alexander aren't twins). These details do take a major detour from King's Quest overall stories and facts.

[KatieHal]

I think my biggest problem personally with the KQC is how it tries to explain Daventry itself. The stuff about things move around there, time is weird there, connection to 'the Great Dreamer' etc. I just find it annoying and lazy as attempted explanation of things that didn't need explaining. To me, it seems obvious that the simplest explanation is the best: it's a fantasy world. In trying to explain things, it only made them more complicated and convoluted. I find the "Daventry is on Earth" bit to be the same--no, it's not. Of course it's not. It's a fantasy world, full of fairy tale creatures and folklore tidbits and magic spells and good and evil. That's all.

[Baggins]

I think my biggest problem personally with the KQC is how it tries to explain Daventry itself. The stuff about things move around there, time is weird there, connection to 'the Great Dreamer' etc. I just find it annoying and lazy as attempted explanation of things that didn't need explaining. To me, it seems obvious that the simplest explanation is the best: it's a fantasy world. In trying to explain things, it only made them more complicated and convoluted. I find the "Daventry is on Earth" bit to be the same--no, it's not. Of course it's not. It's a fantasy world, full of fairy tale creatures and folklore tidbits and magic spells and good and evil. That's all.

You know the only reason it used those explanations was because of inherent problems in the games themselves (the games were self contradictory). For example the geography of continent of Daventry changes throughout each of the games, locations of landmarks moved around to different location in relation to where they were seen in previous game. Yes, I suppose you can say you think he think his ideas overly complicated things, but the truth is that the inconsistency was already in the games, his idea didn't add any inconsistency, just an explanation to those inconsistencies. It's also an idea mentioned in the Guidebook to the Land of the Green Isles btw. Why because many of the developers liked the idea.

Is your attempt to explain inconsistencies/perceived mysteries in the games in TSL any different? Believe me it's just an opinion but some of your revealed explanations so far are beyond complicated. I'm not saying that's a bad thing.

As for time "acting differently" first off, that's an idea taken from Chronicles of Narnia and other fantasies. It's also an idea used in the King's Quest Novel Trilogy if hadn't realized it. So its a standard fantasy idea that he was reusing himself. His overall idea of two worlds connected is more or less the Chronicles of Narnia concept. It's also the same idea that the the Coles had for the Quest for Glory used for there series as well, coincidently. Daventry's time actually seems to follow earth's time more or less. It was Eldritch that seemed to have a different rate of time. But again that's an idea that was cut from the KQ7 in final release, not necessarily his idea. A cutscene with Graham apparently would have shown this.

The "Daventry is on Earth", well that's Roberta, not anything to do with the companion of course. So don't blame Peter Spear, because you don't like her ideas.

[Lambonius]

I just find it annoying and lazy as attempted explanation of things that didn't need explaining. To me, it seems obvious that the simplest explanation is the best: it's a fantasy world. In trying to explain things, it only made them more complicated and convoluted....It's a fantasy world, full of fairy tale creatures and folklore tidbits and magic spells and good and evil. That's all.

Wow.  Anyone else see the irony here?

[Baggins]

Yes, hah hah.

[Flubly]

I think the entire concept of canon in the modern fan-world is the result of hyper-rationality.  The reason it exists is the same reason that the McDonalds that never gets long lines still has the maze-like rails.  We're all literary Bureaucrats.

[Cez]

I don't know where this whole idea about going with the Novels, not going with the companion comes from, but that's -- at least for me -- unfounded. I'm not going with one or the other, I'm going with the games, with the information that the games gave us. If I find something on the companions that blends well with the universe of the games, we'll go with it. I have nothing against the companions. I met Peter Spear when he wanted to write a companion to TSL and it was great talking to him --I certainly respect his work, but don't necessarily see it as canon.

[crayauchtin]

While I see the irony in Katie's statement, I think you guys are misunderstanding her. She's not complaining about the tropes used as explanations in the KQC so much as how they're explained. It's unnecessarily complicated because they are standard fantasy tropes. We don't really need a detailed explanation of how time passes differently.

Also -- and this is particularly the one which bothers me -- the silly thing about the world wrapping around. That's a game mechanic more than anything, and I don't think anyone would have batted an eyelash if he'd just not said anything. Instead, he comes up with this explanation about the borders wrapping around on each other which, instead, raises more questions. Like, for instance, if Daventry constantly wraps around on itself, how does Graham leave to reach Kolyma? How does Gwydion arrive? How can you even map it, since it would effectively not have borders?
The point is, he didn't need to explain game mechanics as a part of the lore -- it was complicated and a bit silly and doesn't really do anyone any favors. And I think that's part of what Katie meant as well.