Mr. Crane is apparently upset that several of the cards in Judgment are out of flavor with his interpretation of the Judgment novel. While I would agree with him that both card set and novel should compliment one another, I do have two major complaints about his article.

First, Mr. Crane continually relies on the Judgment novel for his"facts" instead of going back to the card set.

Second, many of his interpretations of a card's flavor were, I believe, a bit too narrow. Several of the problems he cited would not have been problems at all had he dug a little deeper when determining the flavor of a card of character.

First off, we need to understand where Mr. Crane is coming from. He begins by referring to Mark Rosewater's announcement regarding"Wizards' obsession with Gerrard and his crew," and their desire to not revert to this obsessive nature in the future. In that article, Mr. Rosewater relays to us the following fact:"The Weatherlight Saga was an experiment to see if the game would be enhanced by a continuing story. The answer from the public was a resounding 'no' (although the story did have its defenders)."

After reading his article, we know that Mr. Crane was most likely one of those defenders and, for him, the storyline is a very important aspect of the game. It also seems as though he is looking for a concrete story - a definite timeline of events and character actions. Commander Eesha, for example, occupied a certain place and time in Magic history - a time and place defined by the novel. As Mr. Crane said, he believes that the card sets have lost a kind of depth that will now be found only in the novels. This, I think, is the root of our differences.

Personally, I don't care for the novels. I haven't read the novels for years, and I certainly don't plan on doing so now. (Not until I see"Neil Gaiman" as the author or"Fallen Empires" as the title, anyway...) So, why am I even writing this article if the novels are inconsequential to me? Well, I may not care for the novels, but I do care about the flavor and depth of the game. For me, the flavor is one of the most intriguing and fun aspects of Magic. While Mr. Crane may think that the card set has lost depth because it no longer strictly follows a predetermined story, I maintain that the depth of the sets will only increase by removing them from the rigid boundaries set by the novelists.

Again, I'll quote from Mr. Rosewater,

Certainly, this doesn't mean that the books and the card set should ever be directly at odds with one another - but the continuity that it implies is a liberal one at best. This allows for the card sets to have greater depth than before. It's no longer sitting there staring you in the face, but it's there...

So where am I coming from? Remember the card Mightstone from Antiquities? Its flavor text reads,"While exploring the sacred cave of Koilos with his brother Mishra and their master Tocasia, Urza fell behind in the Hall of Tagsin, where he discovered the remarkable Mightstone." This is what, for me, constitutes depth. I could, if I wanted, compose an entire chapter on how Urza found the Mightstone while exploring sacred caves with his brother and master - and in fact, I do. And my chapter is different every time.

Conversely, I could have Johnny Author write a novel that gives me every detail. I could read that novel and take everything it said as fact. That would be the story of how Urza found the Mightstone.

And that's exactly what I don't want.

The novels are (or at least, I think they should be) mere representations of what one person believes happened based on the information given to them on the cards. For a long time, Magic tried to take that away from me. Now, it seems, they are trying to give some of it back - and I applaud them. That is where I am coming from.

I don't think that our two views are inherently at odds with each other. I agree with some of what Mr. Crane said in one of his earlier paragraphs. I like the flavor on the Wishes as well, the text from the Scroll of Beginnings on the Incarnations is,"totally cool," and the lack of the Nomad's Ancestor/god and the Cephalids in the novel does simply show"Wizards' intent to keep the story away from the cards."

What Mr. Crane disapproves of is flavor text on certain cards that do appear in the novel - specifically, where his interpretation of that flavor text doesn't match his interpretation of what it"should" be based on the novel. His problem is not with the flavor or the cards per se, but rather with the fact that, in his opinion,"they're just plain wrong."

While I understand that exact continuity between cards and novels might be important to some players, it seems to me that he was a little harsh (and maybe a little brash) in pointing out faults with these cards. I've pulled out a few cards that Mr. Crane mentioned in his article and tried to explain why I still believe that Judgment has continuity, a great story, pretty good flavor, and, most importantly, has more depth than just about any other post-Weatherlight set to date.

Commander Eesha
~"War glides on the simplest updrafts while peace struggles against hurricane winds. It is the way of the world. It must change."~

He complains that this flavor text makes Eesha an advocate of peace, while the novel portrays her (him?) as simply a military leader consumed by her desire to see the Mirari and the Cabal destroyed - with his only reasoning being that Eesha, Pianna, and Kirtar all had military titles and, therefore, could not be peacemakers. One of the purposes of having a military (especially the White military) is to either keep peace or restore peace. Recently, Will McDermott wrote an article for MagictheGathering.com in which he describes Eesha's character:"I showed Eesha as a capable leader who believed in the military principles of the Order, but who saw her role as more of a police officer of the continent than a military dictator."

So apparently, Mr. Crane's interpretation of Eesha's character was at odds with the author's interpretation. Both interpretations are valid, but saying that the card text is"plain wrong" without considering other possibilities for interpretation is simply, well... Plain wrong. And this way, we've still got continuity. Next...

Epic Struggle
~"If our foes will not listen to words, perhaps hooves and claws will make them take notice."

Here, Mr. Crane says that the nature of the Krosan forest and its inhabitants is not militant and that death is something they neither fear nor struggle against. Hmmm... this is still a game, isn't it? How much fun would it be to play green if all the creatures just rolled over and died because they would"rather the whole forest be destroyed in due course than risk the unnatural invasion of the willpower of [their] Nantuko warriors?" We'd get cool things like this:

Phantom Nantuko
2G
When Phantom Nantuko attacks, blocks, or is the target of a spell or ability, you must sacrifice a forest, and Phantom Nantuko phases out. If Phantom Nantuko comes into play and you control no forests, sacrifice Phantom Nantuko.

Sound like fun? I didn't think so. Even without the problems this interpretation would cause for the playability of the cards, this flavor still does not ruin the continuity with the novel. Again, from Mr. McDermott,"[Thriss] believes that you fight to protect or to feed only..." and Thriss is"a pacifist at heart." According to Epic Struggle, they tried words. Words did not accomplish anything; therefore, they are forced to resort to hooves and claws. They will fight to protect if that's what it comes to, and, according to the way I read Epic Struggle, that's exactly what it has come to. Continuity check? Still in the green.

Ironshell Beetle
~Why waste time creating weapons? Nature provides us with all we need."
-Centaur warrior~

The problem with this card, apparently, is that Mr. Crane doesn't know where this centaur came from, but he's assuming that it isn't Krosa. As I said regarding Epic Struggle, the forest has been forced to defend itself. But... Since they are pacifists, they have no weapons and, hence, need to create them. But this particular centaur warrior is clever."Why," he asks,"waste time creating weapons?" They will simply use what nature has already given them.

Again, I fail to see the lack of continuity or how this quote could be considered"just plain wrong." It might take a little work and imagination to see the connection between card and novel, but since when has that been a bad thing?

Sudden Strength
~The Mirari's magic transformed the Krosan Forest - and its inhabitants.~
"Um, not according to the book, it didn't."

Um, looks like the book maybe left something out then, doesn't it? And that's not even a bad thing. The novel is a story that takes place in the card set. Not every card needs to be represented in the novel, and not everything in the novel needs to be represented by a card. Just because something wasn't a part of the novel doesn't preclude its existence in the game and vice versa.

Perhaps the Mirari transformed the forest before we even got there. Perhaps it happened after we left. Perhaps it even happened in a timeline completely removed from the novel! Hey, we're Planeswalkers, right? We can summon pretty much whatever we want from whenever and wherever want. I don't particularly like the alternate timeline theory, but it has credence. This card does not even say how the forest was transformed... only that it was transformed. It could have been a subtle change. Continuity still look good? I believe so.

Balthor, the Defiled
~He remembers enough of his life to weep for what he has lost.~

Here, the flavor text isn't the problem, but rather the functionality of the card. Mr. Crane thinks that Balthor's ability to pump up zombies doesn't work within the confines of the novel. According to him, Balthor raised Braids with the sole purpose of killing Laquatus and wouldn't raise and help zombies. Perhaps Balthor never actually did that in the novel.... But does that necessarily mean that he can't? We don't know what effect being raised from the dead may have on him in the future.

Ever read Spawn? Every day he discovered some new power that he had. I can see the same happening with Balthor here.

The rest of the cards Mr. Crane listed were, more or less, to his liking, so I'll spare you the extra page worth of reading. As for the other cards that I mentioned, I'm not trying to say that his interpretation is wrong or that mine is right. Just keep your mind open.

Does using my interpretations of these cards provide continuity? I think so. Great story? Yep... And I can think of a hundred more great stories to go along with these cards as well. And the flavor? It still looks good to me. So what have we come up with? Mr. Crane seems to want the flavor of the card set to be defined by the novel. I think he has it backwards. The novel should work within the framework established by the card set. It should take that flavor and expand it, fill in some gaps, and breathe life into the characters. All of this, however, should be taken with a grain of salt. The novels should be seen as interpretations of events outlined by the set. And with or without the novel, a story still exists. In fact, many stories exist.

Don't get bogged down trying to draw exact parallels between card and novel. If you do like the comparisons, don't forget to go below the surface of what you see in front of you. If you find discrepancies, realize that the novel isn't necessarily showing you everything and that the real story lies within the cards and your own imagination - it's as deep as you want it to be.

Next time, imagine your own novel first, then read theirs. See which one brings you more pleasure. Welcome to the shores of imagination.

Jim Rice