There's way too many examples of commercial fiction/fantasy out there to justify targeting any one single author and making him/her the poster-child for all that's bad in fiction. The claim that he's had "nary an original idea" is either patently false, or a convenient redefining of the term "original."
As to the "LoTR redux" (which frankly gets
far too much press in a genre rife with perpetrators of that particular crime)... people rarely want to hear the truth. Yes, the first 1/3 of Sword of Shannara is a carbon copy of LoTR: characters, themes—the works. Brooks has openly admitted to as much... several times. But after that first third, his writing became his own and the LoTR knockoff claims simply no longer have merit (unless you count the
enigmatic-dispenser-of-wisdom—in which case, many authors are in a world of hurt).
I fully admit that I've personally grown weary of Shannara, myself. My tastes have changed. But it seems he still has a dedicated fan-base willing to buy everything he publishes, so ... good for him, I say (and his fans). I'm quite puzzled by the recent spate of Brooks Bashings around the blogosphere/forums/internet. It seems like it's a new hobby for the "new fantasy elite" or something. Continued financial success with a style of writing that some find too simplistic and repetitive must really burn people's asses, I guess. Seems a little petty to me, but what do I know. And yet again... why single out Brooks here? There's plenty of authors out there riding the gravy train with formulaic 10-, 15-, 20+-book genre-fiction franchises. Do they get a pass because they're not quite as successful at it as Brooks has been?
It seems today's fantasy sub-culture is threatened somehow by family-oriented, simple story-telling where good triumphs over evil at the end of a quest rife with peril. Not sure why.
Readers will determine if it's time for that type of fantasy to go the way of the dodo, not critics. And if Brooks' sales are any indication... there's enough readers who still want it. I'm glad someone's providing it for them.
So yeah, even though I loved his books back in the day (and I still consider myself a fan if only for nostalgic reasons), my tastes have changed so I don't read much of his stuff any more. But I still fail to see why so many are willing to crucify him (all by his lonesome) on the cross of sinister commercial fiction.
I tend to cut him some slack. Because basically, if not for Terry Brooks', Stephen R. Donaldson's, and Lester del Rey's/Ballantine Books' venture into modern commercial fantasy in 1977 ... the bloggers, critics and the new "fantasy literati" who suddenly seem to take such perverse pleasure in blasting Brooks might never have had a voice in the first place.
I know, I know... TL;DR.
