KQ1 & KQ2 stories

[wilco64256]

This is quite possibly the longest first page of a thread ever.

[tessspoon]

Thy Nesteth Quote Threade has it beat, but probably not that many do.

[wilco64256]

Well that thread had length built into the formula, this one just is long.

[Baggins]

Long thread is long.



It's long cat approved.

Long cat is long.

[crayauchtin]

He's a good guy... By KQ3 his position as a friend of the Daventry's family is given a deeper light, as he helps Alexander reach his potential.

I'm still not sure that's the same gnome. He doesn't have much in the way of the same qualities, but I will take the Companion's word for it.

...and are you done trying to widly speculate?

Uhm, no.

There are a few more problems, the giant has the chest, and there is no explanation what he would have to do with the witch... in the original version he's just a guardian of the chest... in the second manual, he doesn't even get mentioned...

I wouldn't find it difficult to believe that the witch has a giant as a minion.

We could speculate all day what the giant and witch have to do witch each, other but in the end it would be just speculation and pointless waste of our time...

I think it's a shame you find speculating to be such a waste of time. Filling in the blanks is part of what makes the stories of KQ so fascinating -- the problem with, for instance, KQ2 (and apparently the original KQ1) is that there are too many blanks for it to be done in a solid way. It's like.... you have two dots so when you try to play connect the dots, you get a line instead of a shape, know what I mean?

[quote[It also takes Dahlia out of the equation sorta, as she lost the treasure not long after having stole it, :p... We are told the giant has been carrying the treasure chest for longer than he can remember :p...[/quote]
It's not like Dahlia would have much use for the chest, where is she going to spend the gold? Witches R Us?

Take for example Tom Bombadil, the books never explain him, but hint about his grand powers, and his resistence to the Ring. Vague references that that may not actually be his name, and that he has gone by many names. People routinely argue over who what the character is, what he means,etc. Its simply not told to us, and this was intentional.

There's more than one reference to Tom Bombadil that implies he is some sort of deity. It is not told or spelled out but there are at least implications. You can't explain a deity, really. Aside from that, he is a supporting player in the books NOT a main part of the story.

Take Shelob as another example, there are these vague hints about her being from a ancient time, when the world was whole (a nod to the fact that the world was sundered in a war in a distant time). There is a reference to her being the spawn of a powerfuly supernatural terror, Ungoliant. You however are not told all the details, its intentionally kept vague and mysterious. You don't even get these details in the Appendices. Tolkien intended for them to be left mysterious (although he did write many backstories for Ungoliant for his life's work, these were not published until after his death, and were works in progress).

Shelob is actually given a GREAT deal of detail for what is ultimately a fairly minor plot point. Ungoliant does not even appear in Lord of the Rings. Yes, later they both became more important and both were given more detail in those stories.

As Peter Spear says in Companions this is actually how you make the world seem bigger than it really is, and is all about the world building, and adding a certain type of depth, that the world is bigger than it is, and that there are things that not everyone knows, nor will they necessarily discover all the world's secrets. If you simplified it even further, then you destroy the sense of mystery and exploration (sense of a lived in world that exists beyond what the player experiences or learns). He has a whole chapter devoted to how he thinks this actually made the early KQ better in some ways in the companion (I think its in the introduction chapter actually).

Yes. Having things that are not explained is a big part of what makes a world bigger and more realistic. However, having things you're out on a quest for completely unexplained does not. THAT makes for bad storytelling. And that is, in fact, how Peter Spear was able to improve King's Quest. Again, I said MAJOR parts of the story cannot simply be called "mysterious" and left alone. MAIN parts of a story need explanation. That's what telling a story is about. Was Aragorn called "mysterious" and then left alone without any further explanation? Was the One Ring? No! Why? Because the main parts of a story -- the quest, the major items, the main characters -- cannot be left untold for a complete story.

No offense, Baggins, but you're more a fact-checker and not so much a storyteller, aren't you?

Also in King's Quest is meant to be a fairy tale story... In most cases fairy tale stories don't generally give you backstories for every single little mystical bauble, character, or land that pops up in the story... :p They often very simple, and have some kind of moral 'message' hidden in them. The details themselves are largely irrelevent. You generally don't find most people bashing fairy tales... Again I understand if fairy tales are not to your taste...

They tell you details about the main things -- at least in the original versions. You know how the princess got in the tower, how the prince/tailor/knight/whatever found out about her, etc. They explain, they don't leave the main things in the story mysterious.
This is the part I feel like you're not grasping: we're not talking about EVERY detail. We're talking about the MAIN points.

I think by QfG3 most people would have figured out the real one was in Spielburg. I had guessed that by the second one, but apparently I was the only one who thought "golly gee, there was one in the game before and now it's a plot point?"

[Baggins]

I'm still not sure that's the same gnome. He doesn't have much in the way of the same qualities, but I will take the Companion's word for it.

As per the KQ3 hintbook by Roberta Williams (published about the same time as KQ3, long before KQC);
"This is your old friend, the gnome, from the original King's Quest game. You will find him friendly. He will tell you what's been happening in Daventry, and what you have to do."-Roberta Williams

I think it's a shame you find speculating to be such a waste of time. Filling in the blanks is part of what makes the stories of KQ so fascinating

The problem is speculating is a waste of my time, since its a bunch of random opinions, and we could make up any number of "fan theories" that could explain things. But in the end it would just be that "fan fiction". We just end up disagreeing on rather pointless details, arguing for no reason.

Ungoliant does not even appear in Lord of the Rings.

Actually point of note, Ungoliant is mentiond once in the Two Towers, "...Shelob the Great, last child of Ungoliant..., but the story doesn't explain who or what Ungoliant is (other than you know it is a spider of some sort, and was the parent of Shelob).

They tell you details about the main things -- at least in the original versions. You know how the princess got in the tower, how the prince/tailor/knight/whatever found out about her, etc. They explain, they don't leave the main things in the story mysterious.
This is the part I feel like you're not grasping: we're not talking about EVERY detail. We're talking about the MAIN points.

Yet, we aren't really told where the prince came from, what the princess's background was, how the tower was built or ended up where it was (at least I haven't read versions that explained the history behind the mysterious tower). These are MAIN points of the story...

Ungoliant isn't explained within the The Lord of the Rings, and it takes another book to explain it (Silmarillion), which was published posthumously.

Take for example the Wardrobe from Chronicles of Narnia in Lion Witch, and the Wadrobe. It's a mystery in Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and isn't actually explained until the Magician's Nephew. It took many books later to explain it. There are a handful of other similar things in L,W, and W such as the 'lamp post', and the Witch (which is another MAIN point), are also left mysterious, and not explained until a future book... and the Wardrobe is certainly one of the MAIN points in the book...

The magical doorways are intentionally left mysterious in KQ2, and it took other sources to explain it (primarily the KQC). This was what Peter Spear was talking about in the Companion. He understands some things are left mysterious by story writers intentionally (within a source), and may or may not be explained in later source... and believed not every mystery should be told (he intentionally left some things vague and mysterious himself), or created some of his own mysteries.

Of course look what happened when he tried to go about explaining Edgar's background...(the biological son of a human mariner of Tamir, and Lolotte) KQ7 decimated his backstory for Edgar. Maybe its another reason why he used Derek Karlavaegan to claim that KQ7 was a hoax... I don't remember all the reasons exactly for why Derek made to claim KQ7, "didn't happen" (but it makes Peter Spear come off sounding like a KQ7 hater).

[KatieHal]

Of course look what happened when he tried to go about explaining Edgar's background...(the biological son of a human mariner of Tamir, and Lolotte) KQ7 decimated his backstory for Edgar. Maybe its another reason why he used Derek Karlavaegan to claim that KQ7 was a hoax... I don't remember all the reasons exactly for why Derek made to claim KQ7, "didn't happen" (but it makes Peter Spear come off sounding like a KQ7 hater).

Ouch--no kidding. That sounds like a really big 'not cool' on the part of Spear.

[Baggins]

Ya, I think it was said that the designers of fan remake of KQ3, put in the whole destruction of Manannan's house into the game in a sort of retaliation over the Derek Karlavaegen rant. They made sure that Derek couldn't move into the house like he did in the Companion, in there version of the story.

However, to be fair, Derek does admit that his theory that events of KQ7 didn't happen, could be wrong :p... But there really was no reason for Derek to suggest it in the first place... Which is why seems that it more Peter Spear was giving his opinions of the game through Derek, rather than serving any real or valid point...

You can read more about it here;
http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/King%27s_Quest_Companion#Chapter_13_From_The_Eye_Between_The_Worlds

On a related note, on Edgar's background, IIRC, he's actually said to be human in KQ4 :p... So KQ7 basically ignored that aspect of KQ4. Guess it goes to show that Roberta may not have had any idea of Edgar's backstory developed at that point (other than him being "Lolotte's son", although one would expect that someone being born of a evil fairy should still be a fairy :p).

[Fierce Deity]

The Companion, was the ultimate fan-fictional novel written around the universe of King's Quest (not to mention, a pretty handy strategy guide). So, I can imagine how Spear must have felt when KQ7 came and debunked every theory he had on Edgar's background (especially considering that Spear already had one version of the Companion released prior to the release of KQ7). It's clearly not warranted, because any decision that Roberta makes for HER series will trump HIS fan-fiction every time. But, to see Spear's work torn asunder because Roberta wanted to throw Edgar into the last cutscene of KQ7 is enough reason for him to be upset and want to establish that it was a 'hoax'. Still, as weird as that last cutscene was (I'm still confused as to how Edgar had found Nightmare and Valanice), it's as canon as any other installment in the series.

[Baggins]

Technically its actually what the industry considers "pro-fic", rather than fan fiction. As in professionally published fiction authorized through Sierra.

Of course, although I think his (Derek and/or Peter Spear's) reasons for thinking it was hoax had more to do with its more unrealistic aspects, the fact that the game includes cartoon physics, rather than story directly. Of course he had issues with how it took the "romance angle", giving Rosella more impetuous characterization than she had in KQ4 (although impetuousness "love at first sight" seems to run in the family). His novelization of Rosella and Valanice telling the events to KQ7 to King Graham, stays true the story, but as I recall, avoids the describing more unrealistic aspects of the story. He even manages to toss in some references to previous games.

Its hard to say really, what reasons were going through his head to 'bash' it with his 'Gary Stu'. Nor is it clear why Sierra allowed the Derek Karlavaegen 'bashing' chapter to exist (remember it was from the fully authorized version of the Guide, i.e. from the King's Quest VII: The Authorized Guide). Although its not bashing as in negative, as its actually fairly positive chapter, and doesn't directly "bash" (Derek does admit he could be wrong, and it contains a fair compliment to the "great dreamer" Roberta herself). It just seems to the outside reader to be anti-KQ7 :p...

Also his Edgar back stories actually only appear mainly in the first and second edition (An Encyclopedia of Daventry), they weren't included 3rd and later editions. I don't think they were mentioned in the KQ4 novel itself (at least not directly). The reason why An Encyclopedia of Daventry was left out of 3rd edition seems to be more to do with conservation of paper. The KQ6 novelization took up a huge portion of the book (and between the KQ6 novel and the KQ6 strategy sections it made the book almost twice as long as 2nd edition), using the same paper stock. But for all we know it could have been Sierra making a editorial decision to remove the various theories and back stories it included. Then again we are back to why in the world did they allow the arguably more controversial From Between the Worlds chapter in the KQ7 authorized guide...

[crayauchtin]

The problem is speculating is a waste of my time, since its a bunch of random opinions, and we could make up any number of "fan theories" that could explain things. But in the end it would just be that "fan fiction". We just end up disagreeing on rather pointless details, arguing for no reason.

And fan fiction is bad because...?
Disagreeing on theories is bad because...?
Different views on something that is pure creativity is bad because...?
I wouldn't argue over someone's fan theories -- it's an exercise in creativity.

Actually point of note, Ungoliant is mentiond once in the Two Towers, "...Shelob the Great, last child of Ungoliant..., but the story doesn't explain who or what Ungoliant is (other than you know it is a spider of some sort, and was the parent of Shelob).

Yes. But being mentioned is different than appearing. When I say something makes an appearance, I mean it is actually IN the story. Do the characters encounter Ungoliant? So, point of note, I actually know what I'm talking about and Ungoliant does not appear in Lord of the Rings at all.
Back to what I was talking about though, something that is only mentioned, for instance, is not even a secondary plot point. It's a very minor detail.

Yet, we aren't really told where the prince came from, what the princess's background was, how the tower was built or ended up where it was (at least I haven't read versions that explained the history behind the mysterious tower). These are MAIN points of the story...

The prince is usually from a "nearby kingdom" -- unspecific, sure, but an explanation none-the-less. Nearly every fairy tale gives some explanation as to the princess' background and I can think of at least four of these princess-in-tower fairy tales which DO explain how the tower got where it was (although usually the explanation is simply "the witch's magic did it!")

Ungoliant isn't explained within the The Lord of the Rings, and it takes another book to explain it (Silmarillion), which was published posthumously.

And yet, even this thing that began as a very minor detail was ultimately explained in a source created by the same creator of Lord of the Rings. Funny, the keys were never explained in any of the King's Quest games.

Take for example the Wardrobe from Chronicles of Narnia in Lion Witch, and the Wadrobe. It's a mystery in Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and isn't actually explained until the Magician's Nephew. It took many books later to explain it. There are a handful of other similar things in L,W, and W such as the 'lamp post', and the Witch (which is another MAIN point), are also left mysterious, and not explained until a future book... and the Wardrobe is certainly one of the MAIN points in the book...

And yet all of these things described as mysterious were explained in the series. Readers left wondering about these points eventually had their questions answered. The important pieces of missing information are not ever explained in any of the King's Quest games -- and since the Companion does contradict the series in a few places, I'm not especially ready to call it canon. It may be "pro-fic" but it is still not written by the series creator.
Point of fact: King's Quest 2 was *not* a complete story. King's Quest 2+ was and this is why it has such a strong following and is favored over the original by so many.

The magical doorways are intentionally left mysterious in KQ2, and it took other sources to explain it (primarily the KQC). This was what Peter Spear was talking about in the Companion. He understands some things are left mysterious by story writers intentionally (within a source), and may or may not be explained in later source... and believed not every mystery should be told (he intentionally left some things vague and mysterious himself), or created some of his own mysteries.

Some things should be mysterious, but not anything that major. Not unless it's going to be explained later in the series which it never was.

Of course look what happened when he tried to go about explaining Edgar's background...(the biological son of a human mariner of Tamir, and Lolotte) KQ7 decimated his backstory for Edgar. Maybe its another reason why he used Derek Karlavaegan to claim that KQ7 was a hoax... I don't remember all the reasons exactly for why Derek made to claim KQ7, "didn't happen" (but it makes Peter Spear come off sounding like a KQ7 hater).

And this is precisely why I'm skeptical of calling the Companion canonical. Yes, it frequently works and adds to the series but it isn't created by Roberta Williams, she has no input in it and similarly Peter Spear has little input into the King's Quest games.

[Baggins]

Anyone know if the magic portal/wardrobe in The 35th of May, or Conrad's Ride to the South Seas, I'm not sure it was actually explained in the story?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_35th_of_May,_or_Conrad%27s_Ride_to_the_South_Seas

Actually I think the word for something important to a story but not fully explained is what they call a "MacGuffin".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin

"In fact, the specific nature of the MacGuffin may be ambiguous, undefined, generic, left open to interpretation or otherwise completely unimportant to the plot. Common examples are money, victory, glory, survival, a source of power, or a potential threat, or it may simply be something entirely unexplained."

It's actually very common in fiction. The Magical Doorways would fit the definition of a MacGuffin.

The fact is I don't really have time to deal with speculation. If you enjoy that sort of thing good for you. I just find it tedius and ultimately pointless.

Roberta probably never would have explained the doors to your satisfaction even if she had continued to make the games... unfortunately. There are quite a few things like this... The Old Castle Keep of Daventry in MOE isn't explained (there are actually quite a few magical locations visited in MOE that really don't get explanations). The desert temple in KQV really isn't explained.

The Black Cloak Society probably would have never been explained. That just wasn't her way of doing things, there were many cooks stirring the pot so to speak (each had their own vision of what King's Quest world was about).

Yes, the King's Quest Companion is definitely a grey area...

On one hand some designers treated it as canon enough to actually reference from it. Sierra's own 15th Anniversery of King's Quest Collection actually referenced multiple parts of it, and even included a chapter from it... Ken Williams is acknowledged as apparently helped Peter Spear design it. He and his co-author, eluki bes shahar apparently worked directly with Jane Jensen on the KQ6 sections of the book (you know Jane Jensen didn't invent Derek Karlavaegen for the Guidebook, she took the character form the Companion). Several of the questions in Sierra's King's Questions were based off it (the world map in King's Questions was based off of it as well). I believe its said that he and his co-writer Jeremy Spear worked with Lorelei Shannon the real person behind KQ7's story for the Authorized Guide (she was one of the people that took the Companion as canon). It's actually one of the reasons why the Authorized Guide/Companion, 4th Edition, is filled with information concerning material that got cut from KQ7 due to funding, time, and other limitations (hugely important if you wanting to understand the design process for the game), and references to some things that you'd only discover if you were looking through the game files (i.e. Rosella's encounter with Attis, Graham's appearance, etc).

Roberta apparently enjoyed reading it (at least 1st and 3rd edition), although there is no evidence she was ever consulted for it (as far as I know). Someone needs to find out what the Acknowledgement pages say.

"The King's Quest Companion is an interesting blend of fiction and helpful information for playing my games. Anyone interested in reading the story behind King's Quest or who just needs to be "unstuck" while playing the game will find this book invaluable"-Roberta Williams, 1st Edition

"...a wonderful blend of fact and fiction that brings my games to life in an exciting, new way. It adds another fascinating dimension to the entire King's Quest experience. It truly is a pleasure read and a must-have for anyone hoping to explore the series in greater depth and detail."-Roberta Williams, 3rd Edition

If you read enough of Roberta's quotes and comments and published material, you learn she's actually self contradicting to herself... So she wasn't even "following her own canon" so to speak... Do you realize that in KQ2 we are told that Graham and Valanice returned to Kolyma to get married, and then returned to Daventry? But Roberta later claimed that they got married in Daventry? She later went on to say that Alexander returned to Daventry when he was 18 (rather than seventeen?). In KQ1 we shown that magic shield can be destroyed by dragon fire, but Roberta claims several times that it was invincible and could protect from "all harm". She has told versions of KQ2 story where Graham discovers the door while traveling to Kolyma, rather than learning of it from the mirror. Of course earlier game telling us twins were born 2 years after KQ2, but Roberta later stating that they were born 1 year after KQ1. Edgar is said to be human in KQ4, but described as a fairy in KQ7. The nature of Edgar's description of appearance in KQ4 and his description in KQ7 do not match up exactly either. In as such that Genesta implies that his corrupt appearance is natural (she just turns him into something mirroring his "heart", inner appearance), whereas in KQ7 we learn he was magical changed into the deformed form. Roberta Williams wrote a prologue story for KQ6 (which was printed in the InterAction), in which the crew of his ship died, Alexander didn't help them into lifeboats (as said in the game), they all got pulled under and drowned...

Its really tough to "state" one strict canon, because everyone involved didn't follow any strict canon (if there actually was even a true "King's Quest canon" for those involved)... if they had one it was rather vague loose form of canon. They were always reinventing aspects of the stories...

Take for example KQ6's definition of genies, and compare to genies in KQ2 and KQ5....

A genie is an even greater temptation for the aspiring soul than ever a Daventry fairy, for a genie does not simply turn a one-time favour; however great, and then be done with it. No, a genie, like a faithful dog, belongs to its owner for life - or, that is, for however long the fortunate "master" might keep hold of the creatures lamp.

According to the stated "rules", each genie is immortal and each is permanently attached to a given lamp in which they might or might not be trapped for long centuries depending on the whims of their owner or fate. Once the lamp comes into the possession of a man or woman that person becomes the genie`s master and must be obeyed, Genies are very valuable creatures and can do a variety of tricks including transporting a man anywhere on earth, taking any shape the master might wish, and, of course, the ever-popular gathering of great treasures and wealth. A genie does have some limitations, however: it cannot cure ills, change the weather or bring back the dead. And a genie always has a weakness

A genie is also bound to its master in other ways. It is said that a genie is like a mirror; it only reflects its master`s will. If a master is evil minded and cruel, the genie will be also. If a master is generous and kind, so will be the genie.

The other genies we have seen, one does not serve Graham for life (generic three wish genie), and the other one doesn't serve anyone but itself (and locks its victims in a bottle for 500 years).


About the only thing helpful about Roberta's comments is that from time to time she offered insight into intent of certain things at the time of the release of certain games (for example her stating specifically that the "wizened gnome" in KQ3 is the same "wizened gnome" in KQ1, they are both the "wizened gnome"). But the further she got from a game, the less likely she was to accurately give an account of the game, or follow it exactly it seems. This may have to do with the fact that as she has stated in interviews, she "always looked forward, and never back", anything she wrote had more to do with the "now", than the past... A good example of her "looking forward" would be that she considered Connor her favorite King's Quest character at the time she created MOE. She claims this is because he is the 'latest and greatest', and she always likes her newest ideas the best.

[wilco64256]

How is it possible to have fun without speculating?

[Baggins]

I come from a social sciences and history background. I have fun simply doing research and working with "facts" and encyclopedic information, . Hypotheses are limited to things based on hard evidence, and you have to back up your theories with hard evidence. We don't "make stuff up".

[snabbott]

I come from a social sciences and history background. I have fun simply doing research and working with "facts" and encyclopedic information, . Hypothesies are limited to things based on hard evidence, and you have to back up your theories were hard evidence. We don't "make stuff up".

That actually explains a lot... It certainly appears to be one of your strengths! I wouldn't have the patience to compile all that information, but it's nice to have it there for reference!

I have a science (biochemistry) background, so I know what you mean about evidence.

[Baggins]

Ya, my proper degree is anthropology (focused in cultural anthropology and archaeology), and I minored in geology and history. I'm currently working on a masters in military archaeology right now.

[crayauchtin]

Anyone know if the magic portal/wardrobe in The 35th of May, or Conrad's Ride to the South Seas, I'm not sure it was actually explained in the story?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_35th_of_May,_or_Conrad%27s_Ride_to_the_South_Seas

I've never heard of this piece before, but it sounds pretty dreadful.

Actually I think the word for something important to a story but not fully explained is what they call a "MacGuffin".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin

"In fact, the specific nature of the MacGuffin may be ambiguous, undefined, generic, left open to interpretation or otherwise completely unimportant to the plot. Common examples are money, victory, glory, survival, a source of power, or a potential threat, or it may simply be something entirely unexplained."

A MaGuffin is a mechanic of storytelling -- something that is used either to drive the plot forward or to lure the audience in. As that article says, typically it's the objective (or tied closely to the objective) of the story. In KQ2, it would be the keys. In KQ1 it's the treasures.
Even in cinema, the MacGuffin is explained because if you leave it completely without explanation, the audience becomes dissatisfied. After all, the MacGuffin is part of what brought their attention to the piece -- they want to know more about it. If they never find out more, it's frustrating.
Take, for instance, the most famous MacGuffin in cinema. "Rosebud" in the movie Citizen Kane. Through the entire movie you have no idea what Rosebud is even though that's really what everyone wants to know. The final shot of the movie finally explains it even though not one of the movie's characters ever learns it. *That* is how to handle a mysterious MacGuffin -- let only the audience know.

It's actually very common in fiction. The Magical Doorways would fit the definition of a MacGuffin.

So would the keys. Or Valanice. I would say the keys are much more likely the MacGuffin out of the three choices -- but perhaps another reason that the story is so disjointed is because there's multiple MacGuffins?

The fact is I don't really have time to deal with speculation. If you enjoy that sort of thing good for you. I just find it tedius and ultimately pointless.

Baggins, no offense, but you're not a storyteller. Why are you arguing about storytelling when that's not your background or, apparently, your interest? That's what speculating is here -- us telling *our* versions. If you don't have time, then don't. But it takes more time to argue with our speculations than it does to speculate.
My background is in theater (including playwriting), and my mother is an author (so I've also picked up a great deal from her). I'm just saying, this entire discussion is not your area of expertise.

Roberta probably never would have explained the doors to your satisfaction even if she had continued to make the games... unfortunately. There are quite a few things like this... The Old Castle Keep of Daventry in MOE isn't explained (there are actually quite a few magical locations visited in MOE that really don't get explanations). The desert temple in KQV really isn't explained.

I know -- and did you notice that MoE and KQ5 are my other two least favorite games in the series? The storytelling is weakest in those three (because most of the issues in KQ1 were fixed in the remake). And she would not have gone back and explained, unless she remade, because she never looked back -- as she said. But had she looked back, I'm sure she would have cringed.

The Black Cloak Society probably would have never been explained. That just wasn't her way of doing things, there were many cooks stirring the pot so to speak (each had their own vision of what King's Quest world was about).

The Black Cloak Society didn't really need any more explanation than it received in KQ6, except possibly "who's Shadrack?" but Shadrack is not a major plot point. He's a name that was mentioned.

Yes, the King's Quest Companion is definitely a grey area...

It is, but strangely it's not uncommon for a really good work of fanon to be adopted as canon. That's what happened here, and it almost always leads to contradictions in the universe.

On one hand some designers treated it as canon enough to actually reference from it. Sierra's own 15th Anniversery of King's Quest Collection actually referenced multiple parts of it, and even included a chapter from it... Ken Williams is acknowledged as apparently helped Peter Spear design it. He and his co-author, eluki bes shahar apparently worked directly with Jane Jensen on the KQ6 sections of the book (you know Jane Jensen didn't invent Derek Karlavaegen for the Guidebook, she took the character form the Companion). Several of the questions in Sierra's King's Questions were based off it (the world map in King's Questions was based off of it as well). I believe its said that he and his co-writer Jeremy Spear worked with Lorelei Shannon the real person behind KQ7's story for the Authorized Guide (she was one of the people that took the Companion as canon). It's actually one of the reasons why the Authorized Guide/Companion, 4th Edition, is filled with information concerning material that got cut from KQ7 due to funding, time, and other limitations (hugely important if you wanting to understand the design process for the game), and references to some things that you'd only discover if you were looking through the game files (i.e. Rosella's encounter with Attis, Graham's appearance, etc).

That's because the Companion was adopted as canon after the first edition. Afterwards, they had to attempt to work with him to prevent to many continuity errors.

Its really tough to "state" one strict canon, because everyone involved didn't follow any strict canon (if there actually was even a true "King's Quest canon" for those involved)... if they had one it was rather vague loose form of canon. They were always reinventing aspects of the stories...

This is called "retconning" and it's infuriating, but I'm confused as to what that has to do with what we're talking about. I think some of them were done because they make more sense -- the crew leaves Alexander to die on the boat? Doubtful. But having them die was also a bit dark for the game. (The most realistic answer would be that some of the crew made it onto lifeboats as Alexander insisted on helping them escape first, and then the boat crashed before the entire crew and Alex could escape. Some of the crew would be dead, some would escape, and Alex would have washed up on shore... although still leaves us wondering why none of the rest of the crew did?)

The other genies we have seen, one does not serve Graham for life (generic three wish genie), and the other one doesn't serve anyone but itself (and locks its victims in a bottle for 500 years).

And I'm just speculating, but it's possible there's multiple kinds of genies (a la QfG) although KQ should have given them different names.... djinni, marid, djann, etc.

About the only thing helpful about Roberta's comments is that from time to time she offered insight into intent of certain things at the time of the release of certain games (for example her stating specifically that the "wizened gnome" in KQ3 is the same "wizened gnome" in KQ1, they are both the "wizened gnome"). But the further she got from a game, the less likely she was to accurately give an account of the game, or follow it exactly it seems. This may have to do with the fact that as she has stated in interviews, she "always looked forward, and never back", anything she wrote had more to do with the "now", than the past... A good example of her "looking forward" would be that she considered Connor her favorite King's Quest character at the time she created MOE. She claims this is because he is the 'latest and greatest', and she always likes her newest ideas the best.

The never looking back thing may be the greatest flaw in her storytelling abilities. Not that she didn't spin wonderful tales, but she also left so much untold and undone and a lot of that could have been corrected if she were less focused on the future, y'know?

[Baggins]

fanon to be adopted as canon.

Well fanon is a bit different too, fanon isn't even "official" authorized/published/endorsed etc, it falls under "fan fiction" definition.

King's Quest Companion was more than "fan fiction". It's seems closer to what star wars books are to the movies, as in sierra authorized sources published by a third party publishing house. That all broke down to a convoluted "canon" policy of G-canon (George stated canon), "C-canon (officially published spin-off stuff), "S-canon (secondary canon, stuff that doesn't quite fit), etc.

Did Lucas invent this convoluted canon policy? No, it was lucasbooks sub-devision within lucasfilm. Lucas has little direct input on what is an disn't canon. Although his "canon" (as what he says in interviews) often directly contradicts things in both C-canon and S-canon. For example in his point of view Boba Fett died/digested in the Sarlacc for a 1000 years (remained there), in the C-canon, he escaped.

This is called "retconning" and it's infuriating, but I'm confused as to what that has to do with what we're talking about.  I think some of them were done because they make more sense -- the crew leaves Alexander to die on the boat? Doubtful. But having them die was also a bit dark for the game. (The most realistic answer would be that some of the crew made it onto lifeboats as Alexander insisted on helping them escape first, and then the boat crashed before the entire crew and Alex could escape. Some of the crew would be dead, some would escape, and Alex would have washed up on shore... although still leaves us wondering why none of the rest of the crew did?)

In both versions the ship crashed.

They didn't leave him to die on the boat, in the game Alexander explains that he had just finished helping all of his crew into the lifeboats, but just before he could get into one himself, a rogue wave knocked him into the sea, and pulled him away from the life boats. He lost track of them, blacked out, and was later washed into the shore.

Ali explains that that if they were smart they would have padded away from the islands, as it becomes safer the farther one gets from the islands.

It's learned later Valanice explains, that all the crew made it back to Daventry safely (would be happy to learn he survived).

In the other version by Roberta (which was apparently written about the same time as Jane Jensen was writing the game story), all the crew died, everyone including Alexander were knocked into the water from the crash, before they could get to any lifeboats. He saw them all drown one by one. Alexander lost his strength, blacked out, and was washed into shore .

Basically seems both Jane Jensen and Roberta Williams didn't quite know what the other was saying.

And I'm just speculating, but it's possible there's multiple kinds of genies (a la QfG) although KQ should have given them different names.... djinni, marid, djann, etc.

It doesn't take speculation to see that there have been three portrayal of genies appearing in the series. What we are given in KQ6 however is a description that claims all genies conform to the Shamir/Malin type genie type, :p... It doesn't qualify with "some genies", it just just states emphatically "Genies are such and such". This is a big mistake when writing essay. You have to be careful to avoid writing things in such a way it would stereotype the entire subject, but rather use "qualifying language", to limit the claim to a certain group size.

[Allronix]

The keys are more "Plot Coupons" (yes, TV Tropes is a favorite site).

Spears's KQ companion is like a lot of the early Star Wars expanded universe. Half of it was blown out of the water by later works. (Just TRY reading Splinters of the Mind's Eye or the early Han Solo novels if you're versed in "modern" Star Wars canon...) The other half is a gold mine. Another good example is the utter mess that is Oz-universe canon. Baum had 14 books, and never bothered with continuity. Thompson was equally bad with her 25-odd, and Maguire's trilogy ties in with Baum and gives it a grotesque twist. Then you get wild cards like Laumer and Volkov in the mix, or try pulling from all of these to explain the Sci-Fi Channel's Tin Man.

(I'll have the aspirin on standby.)

I file Spears with AGD's remakes; it's not on the same canonical "level" as the games, but I'll weave in what works and junk what doesn't. And if there is a conflict with the games that I can't find an explanation for, he with the better tale wins.

I've likened fanfic writing to poker. It's all about knowing what cards to keep, which ones to toss, playing the cards you eventually do get, and plain old bluffing of the cards you can't get. Much of the difference between a good fanficcer and a bad one is in the skillful execution of "canon poker."

[crayauchtin]

Well fanon is a bit different too, fanon isn't even "official" authorized/published/endorsed etc, it falls under "fan fiction" definition.

Yes. I know what fanon is and that's why I said it started as fanon and was adopted as canon. Sierra allowed Peter Spear to publish a book that was, essentially, fan fiction. That takes what would be fanon and likely began as a work of fan fiction and turns it canon.

In both versions the ship crashed.

....isn't that a given? I didn't think I had to add that.

They didn't leave him to die on the boat, in the game Alexander explains that he had just finished helping all of his crew into the lifeboats, but just before he could get into one himself, a rogue wave knocked him into the sea, and pulled him away from the life boats. He lost track of them, blacked out, and was later washed into the shore.

Uhm, so, there's one life boat per person? Or did they leave him alone on the boat? Think about it. In order for that to be remotely plausible, Alexander was abandoned by his crew. And, it would be extremely difficult for him to paddle a life boat by himself (unless they're built one per person) in which case he would have probably died anyways. And, if it was one boat per person, nearly the entire space of the boat would have had to have been taken up by lifeboats.
So, in essence, the crew left Alexander to die on a boat that was going to crash.

In the other version by Roberta (which was apparently written about the same time as Jane Jensen was writing the game story), all the crew died, everyone including Alexander were knocked into the water from the crash, before they could get to any lifeboats. He saw them all drown one by one. Alexander lost his strength, blacked out, and was washed into shore .

Which also makes no sense. No one tried to get in any life boats? They left Daventry without life boats? I don't think so.

And thus, we reach the conclusion that it must be both. Alexander and some of the crew helped the rest of the crew into life boats, but before they could escape into a life boat of their own they were knocked overboard. Alexander watched the remaining crew drown (or possibly just fall unconscious because it still doesn't make much sense that he'd be the only survivor when he was relatively unharmed -- we just don't know what happened to the rest... they probably died on the isles though... sense gnomes? Trying to swim? Druids?) Alexander passed out in the water, and awoke on the shore believing his entire crew would have drowned -- probably thinking that the life boats could never have escaped that storm and certainly not back to Daventry.
And there we have speculation that makes sense.

It doesn't take speculation to see that there have been three portrayal of genies appearing in the series. What we are given in KQ6 however is a description that claims all genies conform to the Shamir/Malin type genie type, :p... It doesn't qualify with "some genies", it just just states emphatically "Genies are such and such". This is a big mistake when writing essay. You have to be careful to avoid writing things in such a way it would stereotype the entire subject, but rather use "qualifying language", to limit the claim to a certain group size.

Perhaps the other two types are not called "genies", in actuality, it's simply that Graham doesn't know the racial names. Perhaps the race called "genie" is what was in KQ6. In KQ5 it was a djinni and in KQ2 it was a.... uh.... something else? A djann maybe?
(Although, the vengeful attitude of the KQ5 genie makes me think he's more likely to be a marid or an ifreeti... or however you spell that!)

Allronix, have I mentioned that I love it when you post things?
I would say (and Baggins will no doubt agree) that the Companion is a higher level of canonocity (I made that word up I know) by virtue of approval from Sierra.
However, with my own fanfic, I often go with "he with the better tale wins" theory of canon poker. A phrase I will be stealing, by the way.