As I was googling Terry Brooks I came across his official site.
quote:Welcome to the official website for Terry Brooks, New York Times bestselling author of 23 novels! Terry has been publishing books since 1977 and is considered by many to be the father of modern fantasy.
From the frontpage of Brook's website. I realize his site is a lot slicker than most sites and likely not done by him but stil thats a lot of gall to place that claim on your website.
posted
Well, he may be considered that, but probably only by those who read SWORD OF SHANNARA before they read LORD OF THE RINGS, and then thought Tolkien had ripped off Brooks.
Posts: 603 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember picking up the first Shannara book--I didn't get that far before I put it down. Years later, I did manage to read his first Landover novel, but had no desire to finish the series.
Posts: 1275 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
sorry, I just wrote something really sarcastic here and then had to take it back immediately. But you would have laughed if you read it. It involved lots of plastic, and the suggestion that his website is someone's greatest fantasy
[This message has been edited by debhoag (edited June 26, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by debhoag (edited June 26, 2007).]
posted
I lost interest in the Shannara series after the fourth or fifth book...I liked 'em, but somewhere, dropped the ball. There is, after all, a lot of stuff to read out there.
Kinda a bold statement---I would see J. R. R. Tolkien as the "father" of modern fantasy, at least as a commercial enterprise and publishing category, with the modern writers like Brooks as his "children," or even, by now, "grandchildren." (I admire "The Lord of the Rings" no end but I can't do what Tolkien did.)
Right around the time "Sword of Shannara" came out, another writer, Niel Hancock, published a four-book novel also much influenced by Tolkien. Those books I took to in a big way...I've reread them frequently, bought all the other books by Hancock that came into my view, and still keep an eye out for more. I gather the first books sold well, at least from claims on later printings, but not so well as to make the Times bestseller lists. They seem to be mostly forgotten now. (They were reprinted a couple of years ago, but have disappeared again.)
I can't figure any writer but Tolkien as the "father" here.
I did read many of the Shannara books when I was a teenager. They were long and i skimmed huge portions, but they were fine. They were your basic epic fantasy novels ripped off of LOTR, although they were the first I read, so that made them marginally better. (In fact, I did read them before I read LOTR.) I tried to pick one up (a new one) a couple of years ago (late 20's) and no longer found it worth finishing. I guess I grew up.
posted
Uh... define "modern". Was there any Fantasy before Tolkien and Robert E. Howard? They each created different kinds of fantasy, Tolkien was a master of milieu and created a world that is often immitated never replicated; Howard built the character of Conan/Kull/Solomon Kane so deep that their beliefs and tenets are a some of the most memorable aspects of those stories. They both plotted an adventure well.
Posts: 3687 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not defending it, but I think "modern" in this context is post-Tolkein, and I'm having a hard time coming up with a name for anyone between Tolkein and Brooks that had anywhere near the commercial success and longevity as Brooks in the genre. Overall, I'm not a huge fan of his, but I've enjoyed the handful of his books I've read.
As someone said, he's laughing all the way to the bank. He must be doing something right.
There certainly was fantasy before him. Tolkein and C.S. Lewis both contributed to different strains of fantasy, and both attributed George MacDonald as a major influence. His short fantasy stories are fantastic, and they are right on the border between fairy tales and the more modern sensibility of putting a realism in them in both humor, style, and storyline.
C.S. Lewis grew up reading E. Nesbit's children's stories. Peter Pan, Waterbabies, children's literature in the Victorian era was occasionally fantasy. The development of fantasy for adults in modern times might be easily attributed to Tolkien, as a sort of forefront figure among those who also were beginning to write it.
posted
There are some that cite Mervyn "Gormenghast" Peake as a major influence on modern fantasy, as well. There's also E. R. Eddison to consider. I believe they were the first two sets of fantasy books that Ballantine Books published after the great success they had with Tolkien.
"Modern" fantasy is kind of a convergence of factors. The big Tolkien boom in the 1960s...an assorted mix of fantasy reprints and original work over the next ten or twelve years...then an editor (Lester Del Rey), at the right place at the right time, ready and eager to establish Tolkienesque fantasy as a commercial branch of popular literature.
posted
I believe it was Lester Del Ray that "discovered" and mentored Brooks during his first three books.
Posts: 612 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tried to read the Shannara books and just never could get into them. I did however like the Magic Kingdon For Sale, the first book anyway, I know he wrote another one or two but never picked them up.
Tolkein is unquestionably the father of modern high fantasy. You can make arguments for Lewis as an influence, but Tolkein is the reason authors don't have to explain what Elves, Dwarves and Halflings are.
Robert Howard could equally claim the title of father of modern low fantasy, since his Conan books were more humancentric and magic was something powerful and generally off stage.
posted
Disclaimer: I've never read anything by Terry Brooks, though some day I'd like to.
I'd have to say Tolkien is the father of modern fantasy. I mean, what do all fantasy writers trace their inspiration to? Terry Brooks, or JRR Tolkien?
I'm reading a book now by Charles deLint. The author bio claims he is the father of Urban Fantasy, which may be true.
Back to Brooks, he may have done a lot of fantasy, sure. It's like JK Rowling, love her or hate her, you have to admit she has expanded the genre. There are more readers, and therefore more opportunities for writers, because of her.
posted
Terry Brooks is the father of modern fantasy in this sense. All earlier fantasy writers were unique in some way, and were following their own vision. Terry Brooks was the first writer to prove that you can crank out best selling fantasy without good writing or original ideas. In short, Terry Brooks established fantasy as a commercial genre.
Posts: 557 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now for a new thought. [statement removed for inaccuracy... let this be a lesson to all of you, check your soures.] I read Brooks first but it did not lessen my experince of Tolkien.
I am not about to say that "The Sword Of Shannara" was not completely influenced by Tolkien, but a good number of writers in the genre are. Reading his later books he did manage to get out from under the shadow and write more originally.
As you can tell I am a Brooks fan, not really for his writing, he tells a good story IMHO, but because he had the courage to write [same statement as above] and when no one would buy it self publish until someone did. Something that I wish that I had been able to do.
Shun if you will. (Me or Him)
-Jeff
Edited because I can't type. Arugh! Edited because I was stupid. [check your sources everyone! Learn from me and don't be a fool, and worse if you are a fool like me don't put that in print.]
[This message has been edited by jeffrey.hite (edited June 29, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by jeffrey.hite (edited June 29, 2007).]
posted
Since we are on the subject of comparing things to Tolkien there is is a "The Modern Scholar" series called Rings Swords and Monsters a study of fantasy, or something close to that. It really ends up being a study of Tolkien but it does offer some decent insight into a good portion of people that came after him, his influence on them, direct and indirect. Certainly worth your time to download and listen to if you are interested in learning about this. Me I will attempt to learn anything that any one puts in front of me.
Posts: 95 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're not shunning him. We're (or at least I am) mocking him for allowing the claim "father of modern fantasy" to exist on his website.
There's a difference.
Brooks will never win a major award simply because he is too well unoriginal. He tell a good story but its kind of the same old same old. Maybe he's the bruce willis of writing, highly successful but really just not that impresseive.
Jeff being 14 and writing isn't a bad thing and it isn't a good thing either. It just means you're young and you're engaging in an adult activity.
Writing, in my opinion, is no more noble than playing an instrument, dancing, acting or even playing sports. However at age 14 though few people are actively engaged in doing it, I don't see it as a courageous act.
I'm glad that you're seeking to improve your craft but don't expect anyone (except your parents/grandparents/Aunt May) to give you kudos just for your age. Writing well is the only proof the pudding ever gives
Also publishing is not the end all be all of writing. We often consider it so because unlike musicians we can't pull out an instrument and entertain people everywhere we go nor like any other creative act can technique/talent be measured in a few seconds.
Poor writing(no matter what format journalism or novel writing) is usually deficient in some major area; be it grammar or structure or content.
Average writing is always technically sound grammatically and structurally but the content is all together bland and unimpressive.
Good writing matches average writing in the grammar and structure department but in terms of content usually combines diction, voice and tone into fine reading experience
Great writing however goes farther than good writing in terms of content. Great writing stirs the mind, enflames passion and resonates in the soul.
In this we see that many writers who are good may never be great, those that are great now may not always be so and some good writers may become great eventually.
posted
My fault! I read a something a long time ago. As I just checked my facts it turned out to be not the most truthful. According to his own site.
"He then wrote The Sword of Shannara, the seven year grand result retaining sanity while studying at Washington & Lee University and practicing law. "
I would have sworn that it was one of his bio's on a book cover. I will have to see if I can find the source. (and burn that writer at the stake) That really kind of bugs me.
I retract my he was 14. Please except my apologies! [see the post with the retracted statements above.] ******** Father of Modern Fantasy??? A father maybe. Did they do a paternity test? Statements like that bother me because as we all know, nothing as complex as fantasy could be created by one person, so I generally ignore them. They are not wroth my breath. It is like saying Al Gore (good, bad or indifferent) invented the internet. Thanks Al for letting me post and for today letting me make a fool of myself.
********
Poor / Good / Great
I couldn't agree more. But I think that books of the "good" category do have something to offer. If I could compare, only slightly, to another modern writer and say the same thing that others are saying about that writer, it is a stepping stone. If writers like Brooks and others can bring people into reading then they have "served their purpose." If they get people then to shut off the boob tube and pick up Tolkien or any other to the number of great writers then I really think that it is a good thing.
Now as far as good writing totally different story.
Publishing is not the end all and be all, but so much of what we as writers do is dependent on being published. If the greatest writers in the world left their manuscripts in their collective attic's then were would we be.
As I said above, I was misinformed about his age. I still see a young person willing to attempt to get something published at a young age as something to look up to, be their writing be poor, good or great. They are willing to step up to the plate and say , "Here is what I have to offer, I am proud of it, reject me if you will." Now having said that, I think any writer that sends their writing to a publisher shares the same feeling and deserves our respect just for having tried.
Last, I do not believe that everything that gets published is worth the time to read. If you don't like something, it is poor writing, it does not appeal to you, it is going to put you off reading an entire genre, then I say don't read it. And there are many books, including those that are "top sellers" that are not worth the time or the paper they are printed on.
Once again I can't type!!!
[This message has been edited by jeffrey.hite (edited June 29, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by jeffrey.hite (edited June 29, 2007).]
posted
Y'know, given how well J. K. Rowling and "Harry Potter" have sold, and how many people have read and enjoyed it (or said they did)...it's probable that the Next Big Fantasy Publishing Thing will be extremely influenced by her work. Not just the quick clumsy ripoffs that are already around. Ten-to-twenty years on from now, we might all be reading some interesting works. Or turning our noses up at them.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe your mixing up Terry Brooks and Christopher Paolini.
Paolini was 14 when he started writing Eragon and it was originaly self published by his parents publishing enterprise.
I was initially impressed with the Eragon books, because I thought they were written by a 14 year old. I later learned that he had done revisions to the story on into college and that both his parents were from publishing backgrounds. After learning that the books were more clearly visible as rip offs of every major fantasy genre out there with a good chunk of Star Wars thrown in.
To his credit, Paolini manages to steal from an impressive number of sources, normally writers content themselves to be inspired by a handful of works. Paolini does not reign himself in and lifts from just about everything. They are awful books, but would be readable for a YA audience that had not experience alot of the more mature fiction he "borrows" from.
quote: I believe your mixing up Terry Brooks and Christopher Paolini.
Paolini was 14 when he started writing Eragon and it was originaly self published by his parents publishing enterprise.
I was initially impressed with the Eragon books, because I thought they were written by a 14 year old. I later learned that he had done revisions to the story on into college and that both his parents were from publishing backgrounds. After learning that the books were more clearly visible as rip offs of every major fantasy genre out there with a good chunk of Star Wars thrown in.
To his credit, Paolini manages to steal from an impressive number of sources, normally writers content themselves to be inspired by a handful of works. Paolini does not reign himself in and lifts from just about everything. They are awful books, but would be readable for a YA audience that had not experience alot of the more mature fiction he "borrows" from.
Ditto on Paolini. The first book was okay, the second was boring as crap. I got tired of the Yoda stuff. *sigh*
posted
speaking of kid's stuff, I have acoupla observations. I picked up a "rock'n'Troll book at the library a few weeks ago, and it was a hoot. And I watched Bridge to Terabithia with the kids and was absolutely horrified at the ending. I think i cried through the last 20 minutes of the movie. I rather like harry Potter, but except for Lathe of Heaven (am I right?) I don't remember ever reading LeGuin very much. She just never grabbed me. Vampire books, I think, are a genre in which everyone's work builds on the work that has come before it, either riffing off the established basics, or deliberately going against them. A good writer is a good writer, and there's always enough necks to go around. And the good writers always stand out. Real people, real world, real conflict. Posts: 1304 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
On confusing Terry Brooks and Christopher Paolini...Seems to me I read somewhere that Terry Brooks, too, started "The Sword of Shannara" when he, too, was a teenager---didn't complete it until he was out of college, but started it then. I couldn't tell you where I saw it---it was probably thirty years ago when the book first came out. (I also remember a reviewer stating the second half was stronger than the first---probably the part written when Brooks was an adult.)
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well the bio link (because in the wonderful world of UBB you can click the text to take you places ) it explicitly says the following.
quote: writer since high school, he wrote many stories within the genres of science fiction, western, fiction, and non-fiction, until one semester early in his college years he was given The Lord of the Rings to read. That moment changed Terry's life forever, because in Tolkien's great work he found all the elements needed to fully explore his writing combined in one genre.
He then wrote The Sword of Shannara, the seven year grand result retaining sanity while studying at Washington & Lee University and practicing law. It became the first work of fiction ever to appear on the New York Times trade paperback bestseller list, where it remained for over five months.
Still don't see who/how anyone can call him the father of "modern" fantasy even if you acknowledge Tolkein. In my opinion that would be like calling Rowling the mother of fantasy.
posted
It's ironic that you openly bash Brooks, to the point of starting this thread for that purpose, yet have fully perused his website. If you don't like his works, what are you doing at his site in the first place?
I really can't stand J.K. Rowling's works. I can't even tell you if she has a wesite, let alone her bio. <shrug> I don't care.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited June 30, 2007).]
posted
oh, inarticulate one, you sadden me. She does have a website, which has got puzzle type stuff and which I amused myself on more than once when I should have been doing something constructive. Woe is you! Posts: 1304 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:oh, inarticulate one, you sadden me. She does have a website...
Hey, I got a right to good taste.
If you like Rowling, more power to you. I don't. But, I'm not quoting her site; researching and nitpicking the details on her bio. More than likely, some of the authors I'm a big fan of, you won't like -- oh well, you don't have to read them. I've actually read older threads where some of my favorite writers have been verbally attacked. It doesn't change the fact that I like them. I don't read anyone's work to fit in.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited June 30, 2007).]
posted
Also to the first part it was in doing research for Moonscar's now defunct thread to make sure that I was right when I said that TB had never won a Nebula/Hugo.
posted
C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, Robert E Howard (I love Conan)...then most modern - I like the way Salvatore writes Drizzt and the sword play...story, etc. I never really liked the way Terry Brook wrote his series. I think its mostly because every extended series - to me - has links or story lines similar to LOR...but again that's me, I could be wrong.
Posts: 287 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not sure I agree with how you've said it, Rommel Fenrir Wolf II, but I do agree that perhaps this topic has exhausted itself.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
