Fantasy authors you (and I) should NEVER read

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

I think there's a reason it has lasted far longer than the "Fantasy Authors You and I SHOULD Read" thread. And I think you hit the nail on the head!

-Pie

Well, if we were to hit Stepen R. Donaldson on the head (which would have been immenseley more satisfying for many of us after reading his books) we could get arrested.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Well, if we were to hit Stepen R. Donaldson on the head (which would have been immenseley more satisfying for many of us after reading his books) we could get arrested.

Without Donaldson, we wouldn't have the Thomas Covenant Drinking Game. Nor would sites like http://news.ansible.co.uk/plotdev.html have been as popular. The covers of the Thomas Covenant series(es?) are also kind of cool. It's an ill wind that blows no good.

[DiapDealer]

Well, if we were to hit Stepen R. Donaldson on the head (which would have been immenseley more satisfying for many of us after reading his books) we could get arrested.

Loved the Covenant series (except the last one that's still active). Of course, I read them as they were being released starting in 1977. And at the time if you weren't reading Donaldson or Brooks... you just weren't reading epic fantasy.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Loved the Covenant series (except the last one that's still active). Of course, I read them as they were being released starting in 1977. And at the time if you weren't reading Donaldson or Brooks... you just weren't reading epic fantasy.

That was my experience, as well. I still go back and re-read many of the books I enjoyed back then. In many cases, they are just as enjoyable, sometimes in ways I didn't appreciate back then. In other cases (and I include the Covenant and Shannara series in these), the writing has so many problems that it just gets in the way of my enjoying the stories. I guess I've gotten pickier about style over the years.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by rkomar

That was my experience, as well. I still go back and re-read many of the books I enjoyed back then. In many cases, they are just as enjoyable, sometimes in ways I didn't appreciate back then. In other cases (and I include the Covenant and Shannara series in these), the writing has so many problems that it just gets in the way of my enjoying the stories. I guess I've gotten pickier about style over the years.

Well, back in the seventies we were stuck with the selection that showed up in the library, or the tiny bookstores at the mall. Occaisionally we might get to go into the nearest real city to a big used bookstore, but most of the time science fiction and fantasy readers read everything that came in because our genre wasn't terribly catered to. We still had periods with nothing new in the genre.

Ergot we often read stuff that was awful, hoping it would somehow get better. Some of it absolutely refused to get better no matter how many books were put out.

As an aside, I think Terry Brooks only sold as well as he did because his hardbacks came with Brothers Hildebrandt posters.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Well, back in the seventies we were stuck with the selection that showed up in the library, or the tiny bookstores at the mall. Occaisionally we might get to go into the nearest real city to a big used bookstore, but most of the time science fiction and fantasy readers read everything that came in because our genre wasn't terribly catered to. We still had periods with nothing new in the genre.

Ergot we often read stuff that was awful, hoping it would somehow get better. Some of it absolutely refused to get better no matter how many books were put out.

As an aside, I think Terry Brooks only sold as well as he did because his hardbacks came with Brothers Hildebrandt posters.

I was in high school at the time, so I wasn't picky in the least about what I read. I was poor, though, and had to save up for a few weeks to buy any must-have paperbacks. Hardbacks were just not worth it. But you reminded me that I used to stand in the bookstores staring covetously at the hardback copies of "Sword of Shannara" because they had those posters, just as you said! It was probably a good thing I couldn't buy every crappy new book with a nice cover that came out at that time, because I surely would have.

I do remember actually clipping out some catalogs in the backs of sci-fi novels and sending in money orders via snail mail to buy some Andre Norton books they didn't sell in our local shops. I was half expecting to achieve reading bliss, half expecting to just get ripped off by the publishers (I had ordered some of those gizmos advertised in comic books before, thus knew all about mail fraud ). So, I was always happy and a bit surprized when the books actually arrived by mail a few months later. Buying ebooks online is so much better nowadays, but I'm finding myself feeling a bit nostalgic over those times.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

In principle, I'm opposed to the very existence of this thread...

But in secret, it's been a guilty pleasure of mine to read it—even the posts I disagree with.

I am not sure whether it's a pleasure or ... maybe I've become masochistic in my old age. But I do keep coming back and have to keep hitting my fingers to stop them replying, and I keep telling myself, "they're allowed to not like Donaldson" (or Tolkien or ...), "it's not a crime" (although it feels like one).

[BenG]

Originally Posted by Phogg

As an aside, I think Terry Brooks only sold as well as he did because his hardbacks came with Brothers Hildebrandt posters.

I like some of their art but I wasn't a big fan. Still, I have a few of their 70s Tolkien calenders.

Have you read their own fantasy novel Urshurak? It was pretty horrible.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I was in high school at the time, so I wasn't picky in the least about what I read. I was poor, though, and had to save up for a few weeks to buy any must-have paperbacks. Hardbacks were just not worth it. But you reminded me that I used to stand in the bookstores staring covetously at the hardback copies of "Sword of Shannara" because they had those posters, just as you said! It was probably a good thing I couldn't buy every crappy new book with a nice cover that came out at that time, because I surely would have.

To my salvation came The Science Fiction Book Club.

A bunch of cheap unbound hardbacks that exposed me to a lot of varied literature. I lived in the country, or far enough away from bookstores to never go, so this was a Godsend.

Of course, my weight-training teacher didn't appreciate it when I had a sick day, and sat in the gym reading The Swordswoman. Not exactly the image he was looking for in the class.

-Pie

[plantedbypiggies]

I've got a couple to add to the list.

I really have a hard time understanding the appeal of Jim Butcher. I'm not a huge fan of urban fantasy for the most part, so I never bothered with The Dresden Files. But then I heard an interview with him where he was outlining the basis of his Codex Alera series. He described it as being born from a challenge to combine two ideas that have no common thread. So he took the ideas of a lost Roman Legion and Pokemon and made a book out of it. I thought this was a brilliant idea for some escapist fantasy, so I bought Furies of Calderon and waited eagerly. When I finally got to start reading it, the book was horribly bad. The writing was off, the plotting was bad, and the ideas just didn't live up to their potential. I became so disgruntled with it, that I felt no qualms of throwing the paperback at the back of a commuter bus that flew right past me. I did finish the book, but I've never been able to bring myself to pick up another of his work.

A second one that I had trouble with was Susanna Clarke. Her writing style is too bloated to really hold my interest. The concept of footnotes in a novel just seems to be too much of a conceit to me to really be effective. I don't mind an appendix at the end of my fantasy novels, but the continuous interrupting of the text really made the story hard for me to get through.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by rkomar

That was my experience, as well. I still go back and re-read many of the books I enjoyed back then. In many cases, they are just as enjoyable, sometimes in ways I didn't appreciate back then. In other cases (and I include the Covenant and Shannara series in these), the writing has so many problems that it just gets in the way of my enjoying the stories. I guess I've gotten pickier about style over the years.

I rarely—if ever—reread; so I'm lucky in the fact that all the early stuff that I read back then and loved... I still love. Regardless of the quality of the writing. The memory of enjoyment is enough for me. I would never risk spoiling something like that by going back and re-reading it after MY tastes, and MY reading skills have evolved. Not going to do that to myself, the author, or the story. If the person I was back then loved it... I'm happy for him.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I rarely—if ever—reread; so I'm lucky in the fact that all the early stuff that I read back then and loved... I still love. Regardless of the quality of the writing. The memory of enjoyment is enough for me. I would never risk spoiling something like that by going back and re-reading it after MY tastes, and MY reading skills have evolved. Not going to do that to myself, the author, or the story. If the person I was back then loved it... I'm happy for him.

Interesting point. In my case, I view that person who was myself as long gone; a distant memory and beyond hurting in any way. Rereading some books I knew he liked is a way of getting to know/remember him better, warts and all. Also, re-reading, like eating stodge, is comforting in a way. Suspense in the plot doesn't drown out other, subtler tastes.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Interesting point. In my case, I view that person who was myself as long gone; a distant memory and beyond hurting in any way. Rereading some books I knew he liked is a way of getting to know/remember him better, warts and all. Also, re-reading, like eating stodge, is comforting in a way. Suspense in the plot doesn't drown out other, subtler tastes.

I am currently re-reading Lord of the Rings, which I first discovered in High School. But I would consider that more accurately compared that to eating... well, you know!

-Pie

[gmw]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I rarely—if ever—reread; so I'm lucky in the fact that all the early stuff that I read back then and loved... I still love. Regardless of the quality of the writing. The memory of enjoyment is enough for me. I would never risk spoiling something like that by going back and re-reading it after MY tastes, and MY reading skills have evolved. Not going to do that to myself, the author, or the story. If the person I was back then loved it... I'm happy for him.

I never used to, it was my wife that finally convinced me to try ... and I am so glad I did. There is a whole new level of appreciation to be gained from some books, and a whole new level of appreciation of what makes a truly great book. So significant has this change been that one of the yard-sticks by which I now measure my reaction to books is whether I want to reread them. My absolute favourites get re-read every few years.

Certainly I have out-grown some authors. Much of the work of Arthur C. Clarke has not benefited from the passage of time, and yet most of Isaac Asimov's work I still enjoy. This doesn't change the fact that Clarke was important to my youth, but why shouldn't my more advanced years benefit from the new insights and new enjoyments to be had from books that I breezed through so casually in my youth?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by gmw

I never used to, it was my wife that finally convinced me to try ... and I am so glad I did. There is a whole new level of appreciation to be gained from some books, and a whole new level of appreciation of what makes a truly great book. So significant has this change been that one of the yard-sticks by which I now measure my reaction to books is whether I want to reread them. My absolute favourites get re-read every few years.

Oh, it's not that I don't want to re-read occasionally, I simply can't. I try it all the time and fail miserably, so I've learned to view it as sign that I just wasn't meant to. When re-reading; as soon as I read something "important," my mind races ahead to consider all of its future implications. But while I'm considering all of those implications, my eyes are still scanning the words and I'm turning the pages—BUT I'M NOT READING THEM! Once I catch myself doing this, I have to stop and back-track to where (I think) my focus was split. Which can be a chore in itself (do I remember that from my initial read or from this current re-read?). So after several of these similar episodes, I become exasperated enough to put the book down and forget about the re-read.

I re-read a lot as a kid, but it just doesn't work anymore. I know this and accept it about myself. I view not potentially ruining a previously enjoyed book as one of my affliction's very few benefits.