Fantasy authors you (and I) should NEVER read

[Kattermole]

Reading this thread with great pleasure, but could I just mention, Terry Brooks was, I believe, the first to write "in the tradition of" Tolkein. For many Tolkein fans, Brooks was water in the desert.

Not that I like either author much. Don't like Harry Potter either. Wouldn't bother suing me though, not unless you want your winnings in second hand books.

Kat-in-Sydney

Originally Posted by nikkie

Stephen R. Donaldson


Terry Brooks
I read Sword of Shannara and thought it was awful. I was very much put off by how similar it was to Lord of the Rings, and my inner sense of cognitive dissonance kept ringing because the writing was so clumsy and awkward. I did, however, recently read and enjoy "Magic Kingdom for Sale". Not the best book around, but it was cheap and I wanted some comforting fantasy.

[curtw]

Originally Posted by astra

Ehm. I am not very good with words. It is very simple, either I like or dislike it.
I wrote somewhere:
The Shadow of the Torturer (The Book of the New Sun, Book 1)
Ehm. I am not very good with words. It is very simple, either I like or dislike it.
I wrote somewhere:
The Shadow of the Torturer (The Book of the New Sun, Book 1)
Quote:
Abomination. Foggy, boring, very confusing. Mad rumbling. Avoid.
The Claw of the Conciliator (Book of the New Sun, Book 2)
Quote:
I found the first book to be one of the worst books I read, but I head so much price for the series, that I wanted to give it a chance, however, half way through this book I gave up. Just could not take it anymore.

The Claw of the Conciliator (Book of the New Sun, Book 2)

I don't remember a lot but what I do remember is that it was next to impossible to read. You read about something, then all of sudden the story line leaps somewhere else without any explanation or introduction for the situation, then again, then you realise that when someone who cannot lie says something, it is not strictly true, etc. I also really disliked the protagonist and his job.

If you made it all of the way through the first volume and part of the second, without realizing thatThe Book of the New Sun is science fiction, not fantasy, than you are probably not cut out to read and enjoy Gene Wolfe. His writing demands your attention to be understood, and he is not going to hand out enlightenment like Halloween candy. For most attentive readers, recognizing the photograph of Buzz Aldrin in the Library is the "aha!" moment.

[Crusader]

Originally Posted by BlackVoid

I fully agree on this. I liked the first book, the 2nd one was OK, the 3rd a huge disappointment. In the 2nd book I thought in the 3rd things will speed up and the ending will be rewarding. But NO. The 3rd book degenerates into excessive whining by one of the protagonists and not much more. Even the subplots do not move anywhere. Too bad, because the characters and the world was really interesting.

Glad to see I'm not the only one. Found a few online reviews that praise the series and touts it as "breathing new life into the fantasy genre". The whole premise of the story is interesting and something different, but I wouldn't go so far with praise.

Another reader summed it up pretty nicely:

...but as the series went on, I found myself having to forcibly pick up the book and read it, all the while fighting the instinct to put it down.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by Crusader

@Don: I wouldn't call them bad per se. They tend to be long-winded and the first two are basically used solely for telling/building the history of the characters. In the third the action finally starts to happen only to leave you completely frustrated and dissapointed at the unsatisfying open-ended conclusion.

It's been a while so I don't remember all the specifics, just that I was severely dissapointed.

I understand what you mean - and thanks for the information, too.

I've encountered quite a number of books that spend way too much time on telling/building a kind of backstory to the characters or to their world(s) and feel like I know what you mean by this.


Don

[PhishStyx]

Originally Posted by nomesque

I did carefully add that phrase That said, I often have 'brain-dead' times where I want very, very unchallenging reading, and the Belgariad would probably still suit me in those periods!

I'm a bit in the opposite direction. I tend to go for the more challenging stuff because I feel less bored reading it.

[nikkie]

How did you mange to get past the, um, "prose" in "Magic Kingdom? It was all I could do not to toss the book against the wall in some patches.

I suppose it's kind of like using sandpaper on your brain.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Kattermole

Reading this thread with great pleasure, but could I just mention, Terry Brooks was, I believe, the first to write "in the tradition of" Tolkein. For many Tolkein fans, Brooks was water in the desert.

"Poisoned oasis in the desert" is closer to it. Brooks may have been the first writer claimed by his publisher to write "in the tradition of" Tolkien. But most Tolkien fans I knew found Brooks sadly lacking at best. If Tolkien was cane sugar, Brooks was artificial sweetener with a nasty chemical aftertaste and no nutritional value whatever.

The folks I've encountered who loved Brooks tended to be teenage kids. They had mediocre vocabularies and had read too little else to have any meaningful standard of comparison.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by nomesque

I quite enjoy the Xanth series for what it is - utter silly fluff. And I have a certain respect for an author who'll happily admit to writing fluff/pulp in order to bring in the cash. Hey, I write boring-as-batshit manuals, which are inflicted on relative innocents, to bring in a paycheck. I'd rather write Xanth novels *grin*

Especially if you could make the kind of money Anthony makes writing them? Me, too.

The editor in chief at Anthony's publisher was a guest at as local SF group at one point, and in the course of her presentation she mentioned that the average SF book they published in PB got a 100,000 copy print run, but an Anthony novel got an initial order of 250,000 copies. This got greeted by a chorus of groans, at which she replied "His stuff sells, people!"

So it does, and I. too, respect his motivation. If you enjoy it, by all means read it. You're at least aware it's utter silly fluff. I just can't read any more of them, and get my guilty pleasures elsewhere.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by nikkie

I suppose it's kind of like using sandpaper on your brain.

For me it was more like eating cotton candy till I got sick.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by wayrad

These days, I feel like it's more that he seldom interrupts the infodump with a mood of growing excitement. I mustn't hijack the fantasy thread with SF though ...but don't get me going on Bahzell of the Bloody Brogue...

I won't. My SO likes the Bahzell books, but they haven't grabbed me thus far, and I've read part of the first one.

I'm currently of two minds about the Armageddon Reef series he's doing for Tor. On the one hand,. I've enjoyed reading (and rereading) them. On th othe hand, in various ways he's repeating himself, recycling elements he's used in other books, and while he does it pretty well, I can't help wondering if he's run out of new ideas.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

It sounds like you've had some really great times with some of the greats.

I've been fortunate enough to be able to meet and spend time with them.

I really enjoyed the arcane knowledge that appeared in Amra, especially from De Camp. I realize now that these professional writers contributed to Amra because of their love for sword-and-sorcery and for the (as I see it) growing Fantasy trend during that period of time.

de Camp was a fount of arcane knowledge. It would be lovely if someone would re-issue _The Ancient Engineers_. It's a great antidote for the folks who claim the ancients had mystic powers we've forgotten because they built X. "Er, no. We know how they did it, and there's nothing mystical about it. Here. Read this..."

There were a lot of sword-and-sorcery novels being published, and I read most of them.

I would love to see a return to form of this sub-genre, but perhaps I remember it so fondly due to being the right age (a teenager) when I discovered it. "Devoured" is a better word.

Thinking about it, yes, I don't recall anything that might be considered S&S published at all recently. But I haven't been keeping track. S&S never really appealed to me, and while I was certainly aware of Conan, I have only a passing familiarity with the work featuring him. I much preferred Fritz Leiber's "Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser" tales.

It was, as you surmise, The Incompleat Enchanter and other collaborations between Pratt and De Camp that just didn't ring right with me. I should probably go and pick up an ebook now and see how it strikes me.

Various rights issues finally got sorted out, and there is a Compleat Enchanter collection with all of the Harold Shea stories. Certainly worth a try.

By the way, Dennis, thanks for the interesting personal information you've provided in your recent posts to this Thread - I find your remembrances fascinating.

I'm pleased that you enjoy them.

Have you thought of writing them down? This is a book I would gladly pay to read.

Er, I have been writing them down, in posts here...
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by montsnmags

That's what I said, but I'm not sure he is willing to accept just how fascinating his snippets, anecdotes, knowledge and experienced insights are, even just as posts here at MR. I'd certainly buy it ebooklength. I'd then buy the signed pbooklength version too. (G'day, Dennis )

In the meantime...it's always interesting, Dennis. Thanks.

Cheers,
Marc

I appreciate the thoughts, but I frankly feel that sort of thing works better as anecdotes tossed in in appropriate discussions of the genre. If it were sportscasting, I'd be doing "color" to someone else's "play by play".

I wouldn't know where to begin in trying to make it a book.
______
Dennis

[nomesque]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Especially if you could make the kind of money Anthony makes writing them? Me, too.

Well, yup! Although according to Anthony, the money made has fallen off in the last 20 years. I wouldn't know, except that his books are rarely available in non-specialist bookstores in Australia these days, and they were more common 15 years ago.

That said, even income NOW would do. That'd be fine *grin*

[wayspooled]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

"Poisoned oasis in the desert" is closer to it. Brooks may have been the first writer claimed by his publisher to write "in the tradition of" Tolkien. But most Tolkien fans I knew found Brooks sadly lacking at best. If Tolkien was cane sugar, Brooks was artificial sweetener with a nasty chemical aftertaste and no nutritional value whatever.

The folks I've encountered who loved Brooks tended to be teenage kids. They had mediocre vocabularies and had read too little else to have any meaningful standard of comparison.
______
Dennis

I don't care much about that comment about teenager's reading appreciations :P

I wasn't a teenager when Shanarra first came out. I was a night shift comp operator at a nuclear plant who had just finished LotR for the first time, in horrible need for something else like it. I'd read more classic literature by 15 than most anyone has that I know now. And I liked it very much though I've never read it again in the last 25 years. The only fantasy I knew about then was Tolkien, and Brooks, and Conan which I didn't really like much, and ER Burroughs and Lieber which I did. And some 4 books by somebody about a wizard and a lesser wizard and an otter and somebody else, fighting some great evil. I remember the lesser wizard's name was something like Faringay and the wizard was something Grey something. And that's all there was.. So yes, I really liked SoS very much when it came out and didn't give a rip for the Tolkien purists who fussed. I certainly could tell Tolkien was a far better writer but ya know, english beer is still water to a man dying of thirst.

[wayrad]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

It was, as you surmise, The Incompleat Enchanter and other collaborations between Pratt and De Camp that just didn't ring right with me.

How come? I'm not criticizing, just wondering if it could be because of all the similar efforts that have come since. Sort of like the first time I listened to Robert Johnson - I thought "this sounds really bland and familiar" and then realized why.