quote:I'm curious, are you going to continue with the Tawny Man Trilogy then? I can't really comment with the ending, mostly because I can't remember it that well and would rather not talk about it, without completely having it fresh in my mind (I might make a mistake). I remember thinking that it was wrapped up well enough for me though.
Still, I recommend you continue on with reading the next trilogy. That third book is still not in a sense, the "end". Give it a try, you might, eh- have a change of heart...?
I ordered them off Amazon when I fell in love with the first two books (and the first half of the third). I'll give them a chance, but I'm really not looking forward to Hobb wrecking her plot again.
quote:--- {edited to add) Oh, and on the Dragon thing, I had felt the same way. I didn't think it fit into the world well at first but I think if you continue reading more and Hobbs world gets more developed- it works.
Or at least it did for me.
***Spoilers***
If you say so. It seems an awful cop-out to me -- all this time, all these intricate plot twists, and suddenly Regal's coterie are absolutely useless and Fitz is able to control Regal through them? Not to mention the dragons -- gah, what a miserable ending. Hobb may as well have put a magic sword or nuclear bomb. There was no reason to not continue the series and document Verity's slow struggle to regain his kingdom and fight off the Red Ship Raiders. None at all. And it would been far more appropriate and interesting than the resurrection of Puff.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, another fantasy novel you might try is Matthew Woodring Stover's Heroes Die. It's down-and-dirty fantasy that's as subtle as a tonne of something very dense--and that applies to both the chop-socky action and the symbolism--but it works. I'd put it rather lower down on the list than the other books I mentioned, but only because the others are that good, IMHO.
I've ordered it, and it'll be waiting for me when I return. Thanks for the help, dude.
quote:I'd also recommend M. John Harrison's Viriconium sequence, but I'm not sure if it's available in the US.
I've been able to find only one used copy of the first book -- and if it's that hard to find on Amazon, I'm fairly certain the series won't be in my local bookstores.
Once I finish the list I've set (which goes back far enough that the last couple chapters of Guns, Germs, And Steel remain unread), I'll check it out along with those short stories you mentioned.
quote:But recently I've read the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Stephen Donaldson, and it's truly great. I'm still looking for someone with whom to talk about these six books. They have made such an impression on me. They've meant more to me than any books I've read in a long long time. I feel sure I'll read them more than once.
Anne Kate, I think I've heard of these. I don't have the time to pick them up before I leave, but I'll make sure to get the first book when I return.
quote:Steve Brust's Taltos Cycle, and his hysterical Dumas parodies (The Phoenix Guard and others)
Heh. Good taste, Tom. I love the historian Brust creates to tell Khaavren's story. Especially the bits where he includes a foreword by the supposed publisher about the historian's mad pimpin' skillz.
quote:Everything I would have mentioned has been said, except for Roger Zelazny's Amber series. The first five are better than the second five, but all ten are quite good. It makes more sense, and makes me think more, every time I reread it.
Amazingly enough, I actually have the giant Amber book -- a friend gave it to me as a gift, but I've yet to read it. I'll pack it with me and give it a shot.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, I may be repeating but here goes. Anything by Gene Wolfe is incredible to me, especially his Book of the New Sun + 1 series, his Book of the Long Sun series, and his Book of the Short Sun series (recently completed (I hope!) by Return to the Whorl.) Enough praise cannot be heaped upon him in my eyes. 'Nuff said. Almost as good is Zelazney. Lesser writers wish they could write just one "weak" Zelazney story. I've read much of his work for 25 years and have rarely (never?) been disapointed.
George Alec Effinger (a sadly much overlooked writer) came up with a weird little fantasy called "What entropy means to me" which I've always found hysterical.
Fred Saberhagen's Empire of the East trilogy is very cool, easy to read yet with many hidden depths, as are the follow up Sword books ( but there's a lot--10 Sword books?).
Patricia McKillip wrote a great fantasy trilogy in The Riddlemaster of Hed and two others.
Also, read Brokedown Palace by Brust. It has some (not too much) backstory for the Vlad series and stands on it's own merits as well. Well, enough. Of all the above, pick Wolfe or Saberhagen first. Morbo Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh, another fantasy novel you might try is Matthew Woodring Stover's Heroes Die. It's down-and-dirty fantasy that's as subtle as a tonne of something very dense--and that applies to both the chop-socky action and the symbolism--but it works. I'd put it rather lower down on the list than the other books I mentioned, but only because the others are that good, IMHO.
I've ordered it, and it'll be waiting for me when I return. Thanks for the help, dude.
The sequel, Blade of Tyshalle is every bit as good.
--------------------------
Okay, for the record, I like the LOTR movies well enough, and loathe the actual books. I tried to read them after the 1st movie came out and it's drek, pure and simple. Couldn't get past the 1st 100 pages or so.
That said, here's my list (with repeat recommendations, of course):
Dennis L. McKiernan -- all his Mithgar books. All 14 of them. . . . The beauty of it is that they really don't have to be read in order, other than within their respective trilogy or duology. I'd actually suggest starting with Dragondoom and then moving into The Iron Tower Trilogy then The Silver Call Duology. And while they're not listed as a duology, Eye of the Hunter comes before Silver Wolf, Black Falcon. He actually gets a lot of criticism as a "Tolkien rip-off." He makes no bones about writing in homage to Tolkien. I find his writing style much more to my taste. His 2 non-Mithgar books are quite enjoyable too.
Michael Stackpole -- everything by him (well, except his Battletech books. Even the few in that universe that I've read are/were a cut above), but especially Talion: Revenant and his Dragoncrown Cycle.
Matther Woodring Stover -- Heroes Die and Blade of Tyshalle
Geroge RR Martin -- already mentioned many times
David Drake -- Lord of the Isles series
Eric Flint -- 1632 and 1633
Eric Flint & David Drake -- the Belisarius series. 5 books, beginning with An Oblique Approach
Harry Turtledove -- the Darkness series. It's WWII written in a fantasy world. Way cool. Leviathins = subs, Behemoths = tanks, sticks = rifles, etc. It sounds cheesy, but it works.
David Feintuch -- The Still followed by The King. His Hope SF series about character Nicholas Seafort is quite good too.
Deborah Chester -- The Sword, The Ring, and The Chalice followed up by The Queen's Gambit.
posted
You guys ripping on Tolkien crack me up. Why do you think elves and dwarves are considered cliche? Because Tolkien set the bar so high with them that everyone thought that was the only way to do things. He simultaneously defined and redefined the fantasy genre, much as Jimi Hendrix did with guitar. Just like Hendrix, once everyone saw what Tolkien was doing, they knew that he was WAY ahead of his time, and operating on a level other people wouldn't reach for decades, if at all.
The reason that everything is so black and white, good and evil, is because it's a fairy tale. Read the Silmarillion, and espeically read the newer edition with the Tolkien essay at the beginning. He was trying to create a fairy tale--one that felt English--that was a truly epic and timeless story. It's ABOUT the battle between Good and Evil. If what you're looking for three-dimensional characters, you've got them--all of the Nine have their own vices, follies, and weaknessess. If you're looking for turncoats, you've got them. But if you're looking for sort of moral middle ground, where evil isn't all that evil, and good isn't all that good, you're missing the point completely. Sauron is, quite literally, the Devil's right-hand man. There's no good in him, nor in his minions. If he wins, everyone becomes a slave to evil . . . why do you crave ambiguousness here?
I dunno. Tolkien's the bomb. The Trilogy's the bomb. LoTR started everything, and it's still incredible today. If you dismiss those books because it's been "done before" . . . it was done before by them. Don't dismiss the original because you don't care for the copycats.
I think that's spelled "da bomb."I agree either way.
For those of you who like high fantasy in the Tolkien style, there is a book which is fantasy(I am not quite sure which genre it is to be honest) based on the story of "The Ring of the Niebelung." It gives excellent background on the Germanic myths.
The author is Stephan Grundy. The novel is "Rhinegold."
He also wrote a novel based on the "Epic of Gilgamesh,"and a sequel to "Rhinegold" called "Atilla"(I think-it is about Atilla)(Attila?)(Attilla?)(Atila?)
posted
There was no genre of fantasy before Tolkien was published. I have one that was printed long enough ago that they still were being marketed as sort of kids' books. There's a funny dancey font that the title is in, as though it's not a serious book at all. Lord of the Rings! <laughs> There was no way to market them as fantasy because there WAS NO SUCH GENRE before these became wildly popular.
It's hard for me to imagine anyone not liking Tolkien. I've read the Hobbit and LoTR at least 10 times, probably more like 15. But I've heard some people say the writing sounds stilted to them or overly formal. Remember that this is a chronicle handed down from another time. It's supposed to read like scriptures, sort of. Like Beowulf or Homer or greek mythology or something. It's right for it to be in rather lofty language like some ancient high legend, because it's a book like that.
Also remember that almost everyone that reads loves these books, so open your mind and try to see what it is that we all love. But if it doesn't work then give it up. Not all people are meant to appreciate all things. I can't bear Dickens, or Mozart, and I just don't think I ever will. So I know how you feel. I hate it that you have to miss something that's so good, though!
[ July 12, 2003, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you dismiss those books because it's been "done before" . . . it was done before by them. Don't dismiss the original because you don't care for the copycats.
Huh? I reviewed previous posts and find none of them "ripping" Tolkien for being cliche. I ripped him because I can't stand his writing style. No mention of dwarves, elves, or hobbits. McKiernan's work (that I recommend instead of Tolkien) has elves, dwarf, giants, mages, black mages, dragons, demons, fairies, pixies, and warrows (hobbits), etc. I love it. It WRITING STYLE not the "building blocks."
In your opinion, Tolkien's "da bomb." In mine, he can't write worth sh. . . . I recognize that he's considered to have pioneered the genre (even though he merely popularized it), and say "props to Tolkien for that." That doesn't mean that I think he actually wrote anything worth reading in its original form. That's why I like the movies better -- they got rid of most of the boring drek and just distilled it down to the "good bits."
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, not everyone likes everything. Even stuff that's really great. My older brother thinks Dostoyevsky is a terrible writer. He thinks Tom Clancy beats Dostoyevsky any day of the week. That if Dostoyevsky just wrote more like old Tom he'd've had something going, maybe.
Not everyone can appreciate all things. We each are limited to those things we are able to understand how to appreciate. When other people all seem to like something a lot and I don't, then I try it a few times, talk to people about what's so good about it, and check it out again after some time has gone by, and then if I still don't like it I give up.
[ July 12, 2003, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like the LotR movies, I don't think. Visually they're stunning. I'm completely happy with the way everything and everybody looks. But the storytelling just misses the whole thing that's good about Tolkien, I think. He's taken my favorite story ever and made it into an action flick.
This won't stop me from going to see RotK, or from buying all the dvds, or from buying every book about making the movies that comes out. But I am disappointed. He's made some interesting movies, but they're just action flicks. The qualities I love about the LotR story are missing from the movies.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Magson and AK, I wonder how much of liking LotR depends on WHEN you read it? I read it when I was thirteen(I am 39)(I will be 38 in Nov) It changed my reading world. Now, there is so much good fantasy out there, perhaps LotR does not have the same appeal.
If I read it for the first time as an adult, I honestly don't know how I would feel. One of the saddest things in the world, to me, is that I can only read a book for the first time, once. Rereading is never, ever the same. I may find new things(esp. in Shakespeare), but I can never regain that "first read" experience.
posted
I read it for the first time when I was around 16 or 17, I think. My sister got me the hobbit cause it was something the kids at UNC liked that it seemed not many people had heard of. She thought I would like it and she was right. My younger brother got it from me and then our dad got it from us, because it became so important to us that he wanted to know what was going on too. <laughs> He loved it as well.
I don't think it matters what age you are when you first read it. It's like Shakespeare or Homer. It's just good no matter what.
But it's funny that hardly anyone at my college had heard of it back then. It was published in the 50s but it took several decades to pick up and take off, since it was so different than anything up to then, nobody knew how to take it. It just was quietly spread by word of mouth among intellectuals and college circles.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
AK, In 1976, our English teacher taught it in the 8th grade. I left the school after 7th grade, and I was so bummed. It was considered "the thing." Liz
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cool! Where in the country were you? It was in about 1974 that I first read it, I think. I started college in 1976 and nobody at my school (a small quite provencial school), seemed to have heard of it then.
[ July 12, 2003, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm . . . so many posts to respond to . . .
quote: That man had once written off all non-Tolkien fantasy (except Brust) as the usual troll-and-unicorn crap
The only fantasy I've ever read that fits that description is by Piers Anthony . . .
Everybody seems to go immediately for Amazon when looking for out of print books, but BN.com is much better. Unlike Amazon, you don't wait to hear back from them, and then give them approval to charge you whatever they want, and send you a copy of the book that may be in great shape or terrible shape. Instead, on BN, you browse the selections of their used book suppliers yourself. In this case, competition is a good thing. You can see what each will charge you and a description of what kind of shape the book is in. Then you can decide if you want to pay $3 for a paperback with some minor coffee stains, $4 for a paperback in mint condition, $12 for a hardback first edition in mint condition, $45 for an autographed hardback, or $37 for a mauled ex-library book. Seriously, go to BN.com when looking for used books!
quote: On a side note, I'm absolutely baffeled as to why books like The Wizard’s First Rule and the Eye of the Beholder (Wheel o’ Time) has such a large fan base. I’m a big fantasy buff myself but I could never see what people ever saw in these books.
I assume you mean Eye of the World. I don't equate these two (Jordan and Goodkind), although I won't work too hard to defend either here. I read all of the Jordan books. I loved the world-building and the characters. If Jordan wasn't so cynically manipulating his readership through a neverending series, I'd say he could well out-Tolkein Tolkein. Since that's not the case, though, I'll just leave it at he's a talented writer with a great imitation of Tolkein's world. Not great stuff by any stretch, but still fun reading.
As for Goodkind . . . I just finished Faith of the Fallen and have just begun The Pillars of Creation. I agree completely on Wizard's First Rule. I could find very little of merit in this book, and generally speaking, in the series. That fact that Goodkind could get this published does not speak well of the fantasy industry. I have seen slight improvements in his writing, and Faith of the Fallen was the best of the lot so far. I would describe that book as the sort of fantasy novel that could be written by a love child of Robert Asprin and Ayn Rand. Yeah, it's like that. Still, not great. Not even as good as Jordan at his worst. But an improvement over the Piers-Anthony-with-diarrhea that was Wizard's First Rule. Simplistic politics, but at least he finally had something to say. And now I've started the last book and seen that it's still crappy writing (I had almost come to believe that Goodkind was in the process of discovering his talent). What this man needs is an editor, in the worst possible way. I don't think any writer anywhere has ever needed someone to cut down his excess so desperately. Stephen King says in revising you should cut 10%; Goodkind would be well-advised to cut 60%.
I am intrigued with Meiville's critique of imitative fantasy. I haven't yet gotten around to reading her (?) work, but I suspect, from what I've heard from those of you that like her, that I would too. But I think she's more than a little out of line in her bashing of Tolkein.
ak, I never liked the Thomas Covenant books, because, like you, I despised Covenant. I just couldn't get over the Very Bad Thing. I understand what people keep saying about a flawed hero having more to teach us, but there's flawed heroes and there's FLAWED heroes, know what I mean?
Still, it may be that I was too young when I read these books. I was in my adolescence, and perhaps had not matured enough to appreciate them. Maybe some day in the very distant future I will bring myself to read them again.
As far as Tolkein, I feel very strongly both ways.
When I read LOTR, at the age of 12, it changed my life. But I was in many ways more patient then with bad writing. I think this is a case of a great story overcoming lackluster writing skills, and I think his tendency to write unbearably thick and stilted prose would put me off a great deal more today.
The Silmarillion is just garbage. If you don't see that, you've let your Tolkein-worship get the better of you.
^ smiley to get leniency from the people I will offend with the above pronouncement
As far as the movies, I did not like FOTR very much at all. It was boring, too long, visually repetitive (though beautiful and stunning), and aurally unpleasant.
In TTT, though, the scope of this amazing story began to take shape. I was very pleased with the execution of the middle chapter.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I haven't yet gotten around to reading her (?) work, but I suspect, from what I've heard from those of you that like her, that I would too.
Just for your info., Meiville is a guy. I think ae and Tom_D also recommended Perdido Street Station by him. I just read it, and Scar, about a month ago, and they're very good, very inventive books.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:On a side note, I'm absolutely baffeled as to why books like The Wizard’s First Rule and the Eye of the Beholder (Wheel o’ Time) has such a large fan base. I’m a big fantasy buff myself but I could never see what people ever saw in these books.
posted
I recomend Wheel of Time that starts with Eye of the World by Robert Jordan (9 more books out after that so far) and the Dragon Lance Trilogy that consists of Dragons of Autumn Twilight, Dragons of Winter Night and Dragons of Spring Dawning By Margret Wiess and Tracy Hickman. The Dragonlance books furher go on in another trilogy the Legends Trilogy then 2nd Generation and finally Dragons of Summer Flame.
All 8 are pretty good the first two trilogies (6 books) of this series are the main story however the other 2 are added on and later in the timeline.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe there are more than 20 dragonlance books which involve the cast of Caramon, Raistlin, Tanis, Tas etc.
-There are 6 which are a history of the characters. -6 which take place during a 5-year period in which the group separated. -The dragon trilogy. -The twins trilogy. -The second generation books. -There's a new trilogy now, of which I believe two books have been released. -And there's also a new trilogy which delves further into the tale of the twins. -Plus many short stories.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, look. In a thread about good fantasy novels, all mention of Dragonlance should be kept well away.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll admit, Dragonlance has kind of degenerated into a choose your own adventure-type series, but Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman are pretty good writers, and some of those books are more than decent.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Okay, look. In a thread about good fantasy novels, all mention of Dragonlance should be kept well away."
Listen, Mister, Weis and Hickman wrote one of the best series I have ever read. Ok, it wasn't the Dragonlance series, but it did have a few dragons in it. It was called, um, well, I forget what the series was called, but the books were: DRAGON WING ELVEN STAR FIRE SEA SERPENT MAGE THE HAND OF CHAOS THE SEVENTH GATE
Oh. yeah, the Death Gate series!I just loved it. Liz
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
AK liked Tom Covenant. I was the one who hated him, the whiny s.o.b that (I think) he was. (No offense to Covenant lovers)
AK, I really want to know why people love that series. Should I read the next trilogy? Am I missing something in the first three books? I could have gotten past "the bad thing,"but not the way he handled it. I just felt so very sad about EVERYTHING.
Also, I see the WHEEL of TIME to be based more on the Arthurian legend, vaguely, than Tolkien. Tolkien himself based his stories on the Celtic-Norse myths, so any other fantasies which base their world on those myths come off as Tolkienesque.
I liked The Wheel of Time, until I started to feel like I was being toyed with. Also, Jordan is way too into women getting spanked, especially by other women. It really started to get on my nerves after a while.
posted
Tolkien did not create the fanatsy genre! What about Poul Anderson? What about Hope Mirrlees? What about Mervyn Peake? What about Lord Dunsany, fer cryin' out loud! The claim that Tolkien invented fantasy as we know it is born either out of ignorance (in as unpejorative a sense as possible) or selective amnesia.
I have no problem with his writing per se--unlike China Mieville, who loathes it mainly, it seems, because he's a socialist, I merely view it with a mild disinterest--but words cannot express how much it irks me to see Tolkien touted as, effectively, "the original and still the best" while other writers of--and this is only my opinion--superior skill and inventiveness are forgotten entirely.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, Poul Anderson wrote a couple of decades after Tolkien. Tolkien is my grandfather's age (actually 10 years older or so). He fought in World War I. Anderson is my parents' age. I met him. He came to speak to our SF club on campus. He definitely post-dates Tolkien. Don't know those other people but I'm pretty sure if they wrote fantasy that they must post date him too. He did invent the genre in modern English writing. Of course mythologies of many cultures could be called fantasy, and those he DID draw upon. But there was no genre of fantasy, no way to market his books, when he wrote them.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Tolkien did not create the fanatsy genre!"
I am not quite sure if you are referring to my comment about writers who base their stories on Celtic myths? What I meant was that Tolkien did, and other writers did, but the others often did so on their own, not necessarily to copy Tolkien. It is assumed by many that the writers were copying Tolkien, because they didn't realize he was copying someting himself. Oh, great, I'm sure that really cleared things up.
Icarus, About the view of women: I think Tolkien came from a very different world. It is kind of like the Hemingway argument to me.
Jordan started to give me the creeps. For some reason, the writer's persona started leaking out, and it made me feel uncomfortable. I am the weird one, I'm sure, because I have mentioned this before and no one sees it the way I do.
posted
First of all, I want to apologize if this thread has meandered off these topics; I just found this post half-written this morning and I wanna finish it.
Magson-- I quote "Hi":
quote:After reading Meiville' article I like to add, that I don't like Tolkien fantasy either. I never liked elves, unicorns and gnomes and stuff like that, particularly if they're cliché. I can tolerate it but I'm not the biggest fan.
I just have to say it- I'm no big fan of Tolkien either, but mainly because I stopped right when I got to the part with the elves- I wasn't that attached to the characters much at that point too so I had not felt any need to continue at that time. I do plan on continuing on eventually. If it has a good plot then I‘ll like it regardless of the elves, gnomes and trolls.
I took this to mean "Tolkien uses elves and stuff, and that's like totally cliche now, so I can't be bothered". That just makes me crazy. There WEREN'T elves, in the way we think of them now, before Tolkien! He did it first, he did it best.
I don't know what all you consider to be "boring drek"; every word of the trilogy is exquisitely crafted and honed; he was a professor of language (that's how he created authentic-feeling languages from scratch).
Sorry, but dismissing Tolkien like that is like saying, "Hey, you said this Hendrix guy was all great, but everyone has done this stuff a million times. Whenever he starts using the wah and whammy like that, I'm like 'whatever', 'cuz I heard Sum 41 do that once and it was like so much more rad."
posted
For what it's worth, I didn't read a word of Tolkien until two months before Fellowship of the Ring came out. I devoured the whole trilogy in a couple of days, the Hobbit a few days afterward, and I'm still slowly working my way through the Silmarillion (which is written like the Bible--a bland reciting of myth and legend and historical text, all rolled into one and served up interminable--still, it sheds new light on the events in the trilogy).
No, I haven't read as much fantasy as some people here, but I still say Tolkien's stuff is incredible. The language isn't "stilted", it's beautiful, and it's exactly as it's supposed to be. He wrote in the style in which he intended--if the story were written in contemporary casual language, it wouldn't have the ancient feel and texture that makes it so great. Epic tales of good and evil, set in an ancient and magical world, work a lot better when the language isn't modern and colloquial (Piers Anthony, I'm talking to you). Tolkien's quality shows through in every sentence--I've never seen a story world so finely crafted, so incredibly consistent, so minutely detailed and powerfully enchanting. He dedicated his life to writing these books, and it shows. Sorry if there isn't enough humor or sarcasm or more hack-and-slash in there for ya . . .
posted
Policy -- yup, we seem to like different things.
I don't believe that Tolkien's "every word" is crafted and placed with precision. It comes off to me as simply overwrought. And his pacing is simply atrocious. Glacial describes a pace that's faster than his plot. So I guess we get to agree to disagree.
FWIW, as a young teen (like 12-13 age) I lovedThe Hobbit. I actually wore out a copy of it because I reread it so many times. I eventually worked my way over to LOTR at age 14, read it once, was bored by it then, but did make it all the way through. Tried to read The Silmarillion but couldn't get out of the 1st chapter. I never looked at Tolkien again, until after the movies came out. I tried to start the books again, but it took me 5 weeks to get to the Tom Bombadil scene in FOTR, when I normally read about a 500-600 page book in a week. After all that time I realized the book just couldn't grab me -- in fact it was downright boring. I'll never read Tolkien again.
Policy,vote, have you ever tried reading Dennis McKiernan? Many who do dismiss him as a Tolkien rip-off. He specifically states at his website that he became an author because of Tolkien and that he wrote in homage to him. His pace is also relaxed, yet something about how he uses the language grabs me, draws me in, and doesn't let go. In his Iron Tower trilogy, the "final battle"/climax of the books actually occurs right about halfway through the 3rd book, then he has a wonderful denouement of 100+ pages. Plus his characters are wonderful, well-drawn, fleshed out, and I rejoiced in their joy, and wept (literally) at the price they paid to push back the evil in their world. McKiernan "does it" for me. Tolkien doesn't.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I haven't tried McKeirnan yet, but now certainly will. I hope I like his stuff as much as you do!
I guess I can understand how you might be bored by Tolkien's pacing. For me, the language and the milieu pulled powerfully enough that I didn't notice how long it took for stuff to start happening. It might have to do with my childhood love affair with C.S. Lewis' work--I guess my paradigm for fantasy is that it should sound old and self-important.
quote:I guess my paradigm for fantasy is that it should sound old and self-important.
In that case, McKiernan's still got your back.
Edit: Here are some brief reviews of several of McKiernan's books. This reviewer liked Dragondoom the most -- same as me. That's still my favorite book of all time, 16 years after I 1st read it. In re the Iron Tower he said "by the end of the series I was more than a little misty eyed." If you look up one post, you'll see I had a similar reaction. . . . Good stuff!
posted
Magson, you and I have COMPLETELY different tastes in books; I detect a kind of "fantasy Tom Clancy" vein in you that, whenever I run across it in novels, makes me twitch -- and, like policy, LOVE the "glacial pacing" of LotR.
Christy had some trouble with the initial pacing of Fellowship, so I had to read it to her to get her through the first few chapters. After that, she enjoyed it enormously.
Me, I LIKE the fact that Tolkien was able to maintain a consciously epic style as well as he did; not all stylistic touches are bad, and not all "accessible" books are improvements on their inspirations. (Compare the God-awful Sword of Shannara to the original, for example, and see what I mean.)
BTW, I did like Weis' Death Gate books. But Dragonlance is still dreck. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I took this to mean "Tolkien uses elves and stuff, and that's like totally cliche now, so I can't be bothered".
I do read any fantasy, clichéd or not if I heard it was good then of course I'll read it. So it is not as you put it, "Tolkien uses elves and stuff, and that's like totally cliche now, so I can't be bothered". I gave it a chance and like I mentioned, I still plan to give it a chance. I have a list of things that I consider essential reads and Lord of the Rings is one of them. I might come back after reading it, liking it. Or I might come back after reading it, not liking it. Hyperion is an example of an essential I came back liking. Dune is an example I came back thinking it was okay, but not enjoying it.
I admit, I do tend to have a bias when it involves a certain elements mostly due to bad experiences involving that particular type of fantasy but all in all- it comes to certain things that make me stop reading. Elves had been a factor that stopped me reading. I can’t deny it and like I pointed out- I like character development. It didn't have character development quite yet (Okay, so it’s just the beginning.) so I didn't feel motivated to continue on. I read a lot of stories with characters that were, to me, rather two dimensional but with an amazing plot or wonderful world building (Niel Gaiman's "Neverwhere" comes into mind as well as- and probably many people will argue this- Dune.)
Probably the biggest reason that I had not mentioned for not finishing the book was because I didn't like the Hobbit. I read it, thought it was okay, but did not enjoy it. So yes, this was probably the biggest reason that made me not want to continue on. From what I heard, If you like the Hobbit, you’ll like Lord of the Rings. I also heard if you don’t like the Hobbit you can still like Lord of the Rings but like I said, I do plan on continuing because I heard such great things but you can understand how I am hesitant, right? If you had read a book you didn’t like, wouldn’t you feel rather hesitant to read any of his other books?
Quote from me:
quote:After reading Meiville' article I like to add, that I don't like Tolkien fantasy either. I never liked elves, unicorns and gnomes and stuff like that, particularly if they're cliché. I can tolerate it but I'm not the biggest fan.
When I say Tolkien fantasy. I mean the type of fantasy that descended from Tolkien, not exactly Tolkien himself.
Another quote from me:
quote: I just have to say it- I'm no big fan of Tolkien either, but mainly because I stopped right when I got to the part with the elves- I wasn't that attached to the characters much at that point too so I had not felt any need to continue at that time. I do plan on continuing on eventually. If it has a good plot then I‘ll like it regardless of the elves, gnomes and trolls.
*shuffles feet* Okay, that just me trying to make my point and sometimes I exaggerate when attempting to do that. Elves are part of the reason but not like I stated above in my second and third paragraph, my main one. I also said that I am not a big fan of Tolkien because I have not finished his book yet.
From PV:
quote: That just makes me crazy. There WEREN'T elves, in the way we think of them now, before Tolkien! He did it first, he did it best.
Oh, sorry about that. I admit, that’s just my ignorance and lack of knowledge in the book.
quote: Sorry, but dismissing Tolkien like that is like saying, "Hey, you said this Hendrix guy was all great, but everyone has done this stuff a million times. Whenever he starts using the wah and whammy like that, I'm like 'whatever', 'cuz I heard Sum 41 do that once and it was like so much more rad."
I am not saying Tolkien is not great because I heard it a million times before. I’m just saying I don’t think I will like it because ordinarily, I don’t like that type of fantasy. I think it would be more along of lines of,
“Hey, you say this Hendrix guy was all great but whenever he starts using the wah and whammy like that, I cringe because I am reminded of Sum 41 stuff and think it’s horrible.”
I said, I will continue on. I’m annoyed when people don’t give Harry Potter a chance simply because of the apparent hype. It would be rather hypocritical of me to read like say, a Harlequin romance and declare it trash, then refusing to read any Jane Austin books or Gone with the Wind. I said I wasn’t a fan of Tolkien because I had not read Tolkien, and although I had stopped because I was reminded of bad past experiences I plan on continuing on because I don’t want to dismiss it simply because I have seen it done before and simple because I have seen it done badly.
Uh, long post but I hope that clarifies a couple of things.
[ July 13, 2003, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Hi ]
Posts: 65 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Tom, I hope you know my "Listen, Mister" thing was teasing... It's funny, I must have been protected form an unseen force from reading the Dragonlance series. My library never seems to have the first book in the series when I go to look for it. It must be an omen. If you liked Deathgate, but still hated the other, I will take your word for it.
One thing about many fantasy series' is that the books are long. if I like them, that is great, but I get mightily mad when I plod through a whole book I am not really inspired by. I am a fairly slow reader, so time is an issue.
posted
Tom, could you define "fantasy Tom Clancy?" I don't get it. Perhaps some examples of which books I've recommended that you feel fit into that mold?
Of course, you're also the one who keeps telling me I should read the next 2 Thomas covenant books, so I know we definitely don't always like the same books. Sorry, but after the 1st one was just so much suckage, I'm not about to read any more Donaldson.
Terry Brooks is another author I don't read. Shanarra? Magic Kingdom for Sale? *shudders*
DragonLance -- the 1st one was good as a teenager. I can see the flaws in it now that I'm a "more mature reader." It's still fun. Considering that Weis and Hickman were game designers, not authors when they wrote it, and it's actually a pretty stunning achievement. The 2nd and 3rd books were much better, although, admittedly not "great." I think the 2nd trilogy, Legends, was most excellent, though. The reset of it is largely garbage written by other authors. I did like Rickard Knaak's Legend of Huma. Still, I stopped reading new DL books a loooong time ago. I'll admit to picking up the 2 Weis & Hickman "5th age" ones, but I wan't terribly impressed with them. Loved Darksword, didn't care for Rose of the Prophet, loved Death Gate, and while I've enjoyed their latest 2 in a new world, I can't remember what they're called, so they must not be standouts. Still, I'll give W&H props for being the "hook" that really got me into fantasy in the 1st place, just like OSC, Heinlein, and Herbert got me into Sci-fi.
And if anyone can stomach a sci-fi recc, I just finished The Reality Dysfunction (parts 1 & 2) by Peter Hamilton, and they're simply amazing. Now I have to go get The Neutronium Alchemist and The Naked God to see how it all turns out.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of Tom Clancy, I just learned today that he has a new book starring Jack Ryan Jr. as the main character. Is it just me, or is that really, really sad?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Silmarillion is just garbage. If you don't see that, you've let your Tolkein-worship get the better of you.
Philistine. Silmarillion was beautiful.
I am somewhat of an oddity, since I LOVE the pacing and rhythm of ancient myth. I don't know many other people who like to read Celtic myth. And I was into mythology long before I found fantasy. Also keep in mind that Silmarillion was assembled posthumously from all sorts of random notes and stories (Guy Gavriel Kay was one of the editors, btw).
Tolkien wasn't writing a story. He was writing a complete mythology for a fictional world. The Hobbit is a "story," the way we think of it now. LOTR was not meant to be so. If you try to read it as such, you will likely be disappointed. And I also generally demand that people read to the end of the first book (about halfway through Fellowshi), since that is where the story really takes off.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For all the Tolkien defenders that have spoken - I love you.
For the comment about women in LotR, it's hard to say the Professor didn't treat women well, in that there just weren't that many of them in the story. But Eowyn and Galadriel were not there just for decoration, and both of them were strong, even frightening in their own way. Neither one of them can be dismissed as a "typical" female character.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
If your answer to all of the above questions is yes, then I know someone who would like to marry you.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wasn't me, it was my friend. One of the essential things she's looking for in a guy is that he can say that the Similarrion is beautiful. Too bad you're not (a guy I mean). Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought that's what you were doing. More data! More details! You may possibly convince me.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I don't equate these two (Jordan and Goodkind), although I won't work too hard to defend either here. I read all of the Jordan books. I loved the world-building and the characters. If Jordan wasn't so cynically manipulating his readership through a neverending series, I'd say he could well out-Tolkein Tolkein. Since that's not the case, though, I'll just leave it at he's a talented writer with a great imitation of Tolkein's world. Not great stuff by any stretch, but still fun reading. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I just finished Faith of the Fallen and have just begun The Pillars of Creation. I agree completely on Wizard's First Rule. I could find very little of merit in this book, and generally speaking, in the series. That fact that Goodkind could get this published does not speak well of the fantasy industry. I have seen slight improvements in his writing, and Faith of the Fallen was the best of the lot so far. I would describe that book as the sort of fantasy novel that could be written by a love child of Robert Asprin and Ayn Rand. Yeah, it's like that. Still, not great. Not even as good as Jordan at his worst. But an improvement over the Piers-Anthony-with-diarrhea that was Wizard's First Rule. Simplistic politics, but at least he finally had something to say. And now I've started the last book and seen that it's still crappy writing (I had almost come to believe that Goodkind was in the process of discovering his talent). What this man needs is an editor, in the worst possible way. I don't think any writer anywhere has ever needed someone to cut down his excess so desperately. Stephen King says in revising you should cut 10%; Goodkind would be well-advised to cut 60%.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
