Fantasy authors you (and I) should NEVER read

[Sparrow]

I'm a Michael Moorcock fan - but I wouldn't say Elric represents his best work (although I did enjoy it).

I think 'Dancers at the End of Time' is a masterpiece, and he's produced other works of genius like 'Gloriana' and 'Byzantium Endures'.

One of the greatest living English writers imho.

[llreader]

Well, I will have to check out 'Dancers at the End of Time'. He certainly didn't do a bad job with "Veterans of the Psychic Wars". ;-)

[jaxx6166]

Originally Posted by llreader
Well, I will have to check out 'Dancers at the End of Time'. He certainly didn't do a bad job with "Veterans of the Psychic Wars". ;-)

Didn't know Psychic Wars was an actual book title. I only knew to be a Blue Oyster Cult song. Any more information on this? =)

I also have to chime in with a defense of Terry Brooks. Everyone is upset over the Tolkien similarities. It's really quite funny, he is on record (Check out "Sometimes the Magic Works) as saying he knew he was writing a Tolkien clone. It was mostly written when he was bored with practicing law and used as an out (I know how boring legalese can get)

I'll admit that he lost focus and then gained it back...then lost it again. He's largely been rather hit/miss as of late, but I still diligently pick up his works every time they are released. Actually, I'm a big fan of his Running with the Demon/Armageddon's Children stuff that became the real prologue to his world.

I'll also have to add Weiss/Hickmann to the stinker pile. I loved them when I was younger. I mean really loved them. I went back to reread Dragons of Autumn Twilight about two months ago and couldn't get past the first three chapters. It's amazing how our tastes have changed. They've improved and then went back to crud several times over the past twenty years. I thought they picked up steam again with their "War of Souls" trilogy.

They just recently finished the "Lost Chronicles" trilogy and wrote stories that took place between the pages of their original trilogy. And I have to say, I'm not a fan of the omniscient narrator that they use. There's also a bunch of "Show, don't tell" moments that I've had.

Needless to say, I trudged through Dragons of Dwarven Depths and was able to understand the POV character as the fly on the wall god, Gilean. I think the whole series is based from his perspective, actually.

But, I got to the point halfway through "Dragons of the Highlord Skies" were I was just like enough is enough already.

They're perfect for young adult audiences, and my brother loves them (And resident evil tie-ins)

But he's 16. Ten years later, they just don't have the same charm they held for me at his age. Which is sad, really - I would love to have the same wonder that I had on first read.

But, since this is about books we don't like...I have to throw my hat into the ring and say that I couldn't get into Glen Cook to save my life. I trudged though about 50 pages and gave up.

I also lost my mind somewhere through Brent Weeks' "Way of Shadows"

And contrary to popular opinion, David Anthony Durham did it to me with "Acacia."

Since he's primarily a historic/fiction writer, I can understand his love of the info dump. But really, sometimes it's just too much. Too soon. The whole first few chapters were like one giant info dump. The Princess is in school, learning from the headmaster (who just happens to be teaching world history on this day)

Go figure.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by llreader

That said, Moorcock had lots of great ideas in there. My impression of his books is similar to what they said about The Velvet Underground's first show - only a few people were there, but they all went on to form great bands. I imagine he was an inspiration to a lot of people at a certain age, and would have been to me (who am I to judge, I was reading Andre Norton and Rob White back when). But it certainly isn't riveting prose.

Dave Hartwell is Senior Editor at Tor these days, but has a PhD in English, and has tought college level courses among other things. He told a story about a lit class he taught with a student that didn't like anything Dave presented in class. Pressed about what he did like, it turned out to be only Michael Moorcock "Elric" style S&S. Dave just stated at him, and said "This class is an elective. Drop it."

I like Moorcock's work, but Elric never especially attracted me. I am extravagantly fond of the "Dancers at the End of Time" series and _Gloriana_. I also like some of the Jerry Cornelius stories.

Moorcock first gained a reputation editing the British SF magazine New Worlds, which was the hotbed of "New Wave" SF, and features Norman Spinrad, Brian Aldiss, and Tom Disch among others.

He was also friends with Bob Calvert, leader of the British space rock band Hawkwind, did some stuff with Hawkwind, and recorded an album of his own called "Michael Moorcock and the Deep Fix" with some of Hawkwind playing on it.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by llreader

Well, I will have to check out 'Dancers at the End of Time'. He certainly didn't do a bad job with "Veterans of the Psychic Wars". ;-)

"Dancers" is just lovely. It's tied loosely into his Eternal Champion mythos, and has a delightful conceit. Protagonist Jherek Carnelian is a lot of fun, as is his friend, Lord Jagged.

Jherek has dinner with Gro, the Horse In Tears: "This is either snert, or it's snort. If it's snert, an entire advanced civilization had to change their ethical and moral precepts to bring themselves to eat it! If it's snort...well, if you've never died of food poisoning before, it is an interesting experience..."

A bunch of immortals on a far future Earth, supported by technology they no longer understand in ancient wondrous cities, where death is at best a temporary phenomenon, and characters are known to die deliberately in interesting manners because they know they'll be resurrected by the cities and it's a novel experience to help pass the time. The great enemy for Moorcock's characters is ennui.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Daithi

I liked Steven Brust's Jhereg/Vlad series, so I had a lot of high hopes for To Reign in Hell, a book about the split between demons and devils, heaven and hell, and it also had some pretty good reviews by big name authors. Unfortunately, I found the book really, really, boring.

_To Reign in Hell_ is early Brust, and not to everyone's taste. _Cowboy Feng's Space Bar and Grill_ is another that gets divided opinions.
______
Dennis

[llreader]

Originally Posted by jaxx6166

Didn't know Psychic Wars was an actual book title. I only knew to be a Blue Oyster Cult song. Any more information on this? =)

It was sort of a joke. Moorcock wrote the lyrics to that one. BÖC were big fans (they wrote a couple of songs about his books, most notably "Black Blade" and perhaps "Flaming Telepaths"). They got to be friends. And I like it - great tune.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veteran...e_Psychic_Wars

[llreader]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

"Dancers" is just lovely. It's tied loosely into his Eternal Champion mythos, and has a delightful conceit. Protagonist Jherek Carnelian is a lot of fun, as is his friend, Lord Jagged.

A bunch of immortals on a far future Earth, supported by technology they no longer understand in ancient wondrous cities, where death is at best a temporary phenomenon, and characters are known to die deliberately in interesting manners because they know they'll be resurrected by the cities and it's a novel experience to help pass the time. The great enemy for Moorcock's characters is ennui.
______
Dennis

Now that sounds interesting. I don't think Moorcock is hopeless just because I didn't like those books. I found Zelazny's "The Changing Land" really mediocre (Dilvish the Damned is a great idea, but the book wasn't). However, I am re-reading the Chronicles of Amber for the Nth time, and the guy can write. Nine Princes blew my mind the first time I read it (at about age 12) but Guns of Avalon seems better written, now that I am revisiting it. Lord of Light is one of my all-time favorite books, it is the perfect blend of action, intrigue, metaphysical philosophy, and pure magic.

Oh, wait, this thread is about BAD writing. Sorry.

[kjk]

Wow.

I'm a pretty voracious reader of science fiction and fantasy, and I have to say that I agree with almost EVERY single author mentioned on these ten pages (especially the first couple pages).

And by agree I mean that over the years, I have tried to read EVERY ONE of the works/authors mentioned (except Gaiman and Diana Gabaldon), over the years, and just would not recommend any of them, much less re-read them.

The only exceptions I noticed were Gene Wolfe (love the New Sun series), Michael Moorcock (love Elric), Zelazny (love Amber) and ...well, damn.

I will admit that Lin Carter was one of the FIRST fantasy authors I read, and I think his Green Star series got me interested in the whole genre (plus it was kinda racy for a 12 year old).

(Cool to find out other people tried the more obscure ones like "Prince of Nothing", etc.. besides me )

[wayspooled]

Originally Posted by BenG

Actually I think she talking about the Circle of Light series by Niel Hancock. It had talking animals. The first book was Greyfax Grimwald; the second was Faragon Fairingay. It was one of the first fantasies I read after reading Tolkien. Or I should say, tried to read. I couldn't make it past the first quarter of the book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niel_Hancock

That's it, thank you. Circle of Light series by Niel Hancock.
1 - Greyfax Grimwald
2 - Faragon Fairingay
3 - Calix Stay
4 - Squaring the Circle

Well, I devoured them. They really were young reader oriented but I didn't care. I'd just read Tolkien and discovered something new. I can't honestly say they are even good, but I thought they were great at the time.

[llreader]

Originally Posted by kjk

Wow.

The only exceptions I noticed were Gene Wolfe (love the New Sun series), Michael Moorcock (love Elric), Zelazny (love Amber) and ...well, damn.

I just want to be clear - I think I am the only one who said anything unflattering about Zelazny, and he is one of my favorite authors (I know, I was off the "NEVER read" topic). I just didn't like one book.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by llreader

I just want to be clear - I think I am the only one who said anything unflattering about Zelazny, and he is one of my favorite authors (I know, I was off the "NEVER read" topic). I just didn't like one book.

I loved Zelazney's work when I first discovered it. I have great memories of that time. There've only been few titles I didn't care for, but I can't remember now which ones they were.

My first title I read was "This Immortal," which tied with "Dune" for the Hugo Award for Best Novel. I read this great Zelazny novel before it won the award.

And there was "Lord of Light," about the same time I discovered Herman Hesse.

Great, early novels. He has a few clunkers thrown in there, too.

[melanti]

I can't believe how many of these books/authors I've read. I can't decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing on some of them.

With Lackey, what I found absolutely unforgivable in her writing is she wrote herself into one of her books. She didn't even bother to change the name, other than some creative spelling. A tiny cameo might be acceptable, but a Mary Sue with the author's name coming out of nowhere then falling in love with and dating the main character, then saving the day by knowing some random obscure facts? There's really no excuse for that behavior with a professional author.

I liked the herald's mage series a lot when I was a teen, but now I'm almost embarrassed to admit I've read it at all.

With Terry brooks, I started out with his Knights of the Word series and really liked it, but haven't managed to get more than a couple of chapters into anything else he's written. It's such a shame too... I really want an excuse to get the Voyage of Jerle Shanara book. The original cover art for the hardback was really unique. (And that's probably the lamest reason ever to want to read a book.)

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

I loved Zelazney's work when I first discovered it. I have great memories of that time. There've only been few titles I didn't care for, but I can't remember now which ones they were.

My first title I read was "This Immortal," which tied with "Dune" for the Hugo Award for Best Novel. I read this great Zelazny novel before it won the award.

And there was "Lord of Light," about the same time I discovered Herman Hesse.

Great, early novels. He has a few clunkers thrown in there, too.

Everyone has a clunker or two.

Note that _This Immortal_ was originally published as "And Call Me Conrad" in the Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, and the book is an expansion of the magazine version.

Similarly, _Damnation Alley_ was originally a novelette, bulked up to be a novel when an editor requested it. The bulk up is not entirely successful, with things like a multi page digression of the voyage of a brave aeronaut to post-holocaust Europe across a storm-wracked Atlantic Ocean. It's the sort of vivid and poetic writing that made Roger famous, save that it has no connection stylistically or in plot with the rest of the book, and breaks the flow of the reading.

I think _Today We Choose Faces_ may be the weakest of Roger's books for me.

Another often considered weak but I enjoyed was _Creatures of Light and Darkness_. This was picked up and trumpeted by the New Wave crowd in the late '60s, which bemused Roger: he'd written it largely as a joke, deliberately tossing in every radical writing technique he knew to see what would happen. It's lots of fun if not taken seriously, and Roger was a bit amazed anyone had.
______
Dennis

[Latinandgreek]

Originally Posted by kjk

Wow.


(Cool to find out other people tried the more obscure ones like "Prince of Nothing", etc.. besides me )

It's funny that you call "Prince of Nothing" obscure, I've noticed that it is quite popular here in Croatia. In general I feel like Sci-Fi and Fantasy is much more popular here than in North America. For example, the Sarah Conner Chronicles and Firefly were popular here, while they had bad ratings when they originally aired on fox. Then again we only have 4 t.v. channels.