I read the first three books of the series, then skipped ahead to Faith of the Fallen. What I found was the same plot device used in three out of the only four books I had read, namely Richard being "kidnapped" by a strong female character and being forced into a lifestyle he didn't believe in or want. Huh. There were some elements of the books that I did like, but primarily found them to be sophmoric in writing and concept. I found several scenes that left me wondering if Goodkind had read what he had written previously. Example, in the first book Richard attends a ritual with the Mud People in which the spirits of dead ancestors appear. In the second book, Richard again attends the same rite, and lo and behold, the spirit of Darken Rahl, his dead father, arrives despite not being specifically summoned. Made me wonder why none of Richard's other dead relatives made an appearance in either ritual to help or interfere with his quest. Hmmmm. And how was it Violet was able to torture Richaed with Cara's agiel when the device will only work for someone who's been trained with it?

quote:

---

o.k, several things here are not making sense. first of, this is a DISCUSSION. we are supposed to pick a topic and stick with it for at least five posts. (I know I am doing the same thing here. I am a hypocrite sometimes. doing this to get us back on track.) the only time I have seen this is with the Harry Potter five series. and that was just to dis it, wich you never want to do if the writer is filthy rich. and another thing: NEVER DIS GEORGE LUCAS! sure, His latest three bombed but never forget the clasics that make four of them. (the first and second dont count.) Harry Potter five may have bombed in storyline and about every other aspect of the book, but what killed it for me was WHO WAS KILLED!!!!! I cannot believe that she did that! never seen the matrix or trinity, but I can understand the "long-winded-speech-just-after-you-stab yourself-or-do-whatever-it-takes-to-die" thing. three words: Antony and Cleopatra. it took every person who did die over ten minutes to. that killed what was otherwise a violent and well-written play.

---

The enter key is your friend.

About Lucas, I agree that episoe IV was good (but the dialogue is HORRIBLE! "But I want to go to buy power converters!"). Empire wasn't written OR directed by Lucas, and ROTJ had Ewoks, who sucked and nearly ruined the entire movie.

Lucas is lucky to be surrounded by fanboys.

Look at GRRM's Fire and Ice books. THey are not "good guys win, bad guys die" and are very, very popular.

In fact, I'd say that they are the opposite of "good guys win, bad guys die."

Shendülféa, your comments were at the beginning of this thread, but this is my first peek here, so let me bring them down:

quote:

---

is this what the publishers think we fantasy fans want to read? Overly disgusting violence and smut all over the place?

---

At a writer's conference where I had sent 20 pages to be critiqued, the editor who critiqued my pages was super positive. He had nothing but complimentary comments and had written across the top of my chapters that he wanted to see the whole book. We spent the 10 or 15 minutes talking about how I had come to write my story. However, his very first question when we sat down had been, "Does it have any sex in it?" I could see he was disappointed when I said it didn't. He even mentioned a female SF writer who was writing sex into her SF.

He ultimately rejected the story, and I have to wonder if it would have flown had it been a lurid tale. That's not me, though. Like you, I don't want to read that stuff and I certainly won't write it. In fact, I read so little now because too many books are permeated with off color junk. What I do read, I have to skim as I go. (How could I have forgotten this on the "Do You Read Every Word" thread?)

Anything written by and for TSR. Or, I should just say any story that's a complete bite from JRR Tolkein's work.

The WHOLE "Rama" series was abysmal, such a let down where the ideas could've been GREAT if he would just stretch realistic science just a fraction more. It was so dry I couldn't get past book two and the thing that really turned me off of book two was the heavy Catholicism bent with one of the characters. I don't mind religion being a part of the character's lives and hence, part of the story, but I dislike reading over two chapters nearly devoted to religious theology. Not crucial to the story, either (at least, I thought). "Imperial Earth" was another horribly dry and unimaginative peice of do-do, though I imagine in his hayday that was the top poop.

The "I, Robot" series. Once again, another dry one. Although I enjoyed the FIRST book, the second, however was the last straw and I don't think I'd be able to stomach another one. It was so bad I actually PREFER the MOVIE over the book, for a change!

Yes, I must not forget "The Wheel of Time"! Oh, barf! Honestly, talk about an author that bites off others! Not only are there obvious Tolkein bites, but I've run across several books that predate his "ideas" that led me to believe there was no other possible source for those same "ideas" in his own work. Gosh, end the stupid series already! Don't get me started on his other works...

"Harry Potter". Although I like the books, I do have to say the plot lines are starting to look stale. Boy lives with his relatives (that you hope and hope and hope he'll just kill off!), goes to Hogwarts to face another year, meets challenge by villain and comes out triumphant. Okay, maybe not, but it's getting old already. Maybe she should've ended the series with book four?

Terry Brooks' "Shinara" series. Aside from the aformentioned bites, I despise prequals. I think that's the quickest way to ruin a good series, go BACK in time before the first book you just read...

Speaking of prequals, "Star Wars" ranks up there with the most. I love the movies, but after seeing them a couple times, the new ones actually poked more holes in his own story than anything else. Plus, the information on the official site is so convoluted and saturated with detail it acts as paint thinner to the whole story/universe. Major problems come with letting others write in your universe as extensively as Lucas has. Another thing that ends the beauty of it. I'd rather have seen him do work AFTER Episode 6 than go back and find out *gasp* that vader was a pompous, know-it-all, emotionless pansy. He falls to the dark side, do we really need to SEE it? We already KNOW what's going to happen.

Anything involved with "Star Trek". If I wanted to be bored with talking during action sequences I'd have hired Al Gore to read the names from the phone book while in the middle of the LA riots. That would've probably been more interesting. Those Trekkies really need some help...

For movies, I'd have to say Jackson's "adaptation" of "Lord of the Rings". Ack, I've seen hack jobs before but this was... unforgivable. He said in an interview that he "kept things true to the book". His nose should've impaled someone's eye out in the audience! What a crock! Sauruman WASN'T allied with Sauron intentionally, orcs DIDN'T crawl on walls, Gandalf was never an overly HAPPY character... on and on and on... there are so many things wrong with it that even the cool effects, wardrobe and style leave it gasping for breath on the floor after having trampled Tolkein's vision afresh just like prior attempts before him. Thanks so much, Jackson, now we'll have to deal with a butt-load of admirers who simply GUSH about how "brilliant" you made it for at LEAST 50 years!

Lastly, "The Matrix". Barf. My friend and I sat in the theater PREDICTING the "flowery" dialogue and wondering why, if this is a universe where your thoughts can control the environs, then why NOT go Dragon Ball Z on the whole flipping lot of them? Bad acting, although I WILL say that Keanu Reeves did an EXCELLENT job "emptying his mind" for training. Not necessarily a difficult task for him, if you've seen his other movies...

quote:

---

The WHOLE "Rama" series was abysmal, such a let down where the ideas could've been GREAT if he would just stretch realistic science just a fraction more. It was so dry I couldn't get past book two and the thing that really turned me off of book two was the heavy Catholicism bent with one of the characters. I don't mind religion being a part of the character's lives and hence, part of the story, but I dislike reading over two chapters nearly devoted to religious theology. Not crucial to the story, either (at least, I thought).

---

I thought that the first Rama book was simply awesome. Mysterious and engaging.

However, the other books were TERRIBLE.

I read them because I simply wanted to finish the story, but they were BRUTAL.

A lot of folks talk positively about a first books of a series then gripe about the rest. What does that teach us?

One good book leads to a dozen bad?

Know when to stop beating a dead horse?
(But I imagine those advance checks are so additive!)

Don't we all wish we were at a point where others can complain we had sold out?

Readers and editors share one thing in common: They want more and more and more of the same.

If we buy books not because we hope they will be something new but because they will be something the same, who do we blame?

Ah come on Constipatron! I think it's all in your vision of Tolkien's books. While some dramatic license was taken by Jackson(as you mentioned--and other things like no Tom Bombadil, and Frodo not being naked at the last etc.) The overall feel, IMHO was true to Tolkien's tale. In fact, Tolkien could've done a bit of improvement on his writing style--waay too much world-building, not enough introspection and character development. Still I love Tolkien's books, and Jackson's rendition. Any yes, since I'm planning on living until my eleventy-first birthday (at least) you'll be hearing about it for far LONGER than 50 years!!!!

With the LotR movies, I think that Jackson stayed as true to the books as the medium would allow him. He had to think about time constraints (the reason why Tom Bombadill amongst other things were not included and even then the movies were quite long, not that I am complaining or anything--I think anything shorter than the 3 hours each that they were would have been less effective). These time constraints are what affected the trueness of the movies to the books more than anything. That's why there's no "Scouring of the Shire," and why, because of that, Saruman was stabbed by Wormtongue and then killed from a fall from the top of Orthanc (in the Extended Version).

I also don't think that there was any one proper way to interpret Tolkien's characters. He didn't characterize them well enough for one to do so. Take Gandalf, for example. Constipatron said that he was "never an overly HAPPY character." Tolkien, I think, never developed his character enough in order for anyone to determine whether or not he was an "overly happy character." On the other hand, I don't even recall him being "overly happy" in the movies. He was, I would say, optimistic, but not "overly happy." (However, near the end of RotK, we see him lose his optimism. Pippin asks him, "Is there any hope, Gandalf, for Frodo and Sam?" To which Gandalf then replies, "There was never much hope. Just a fool's hope." At another point, he comments, "I've sent [Frodo] to his death." We see here that Gandalf has lost hope for the quest and that he is no longer so optimistic about it.)

Maybe twenty, twenty-five years from now, somebody else will take another crack at it, with improved special effects. But for here-and-now, it will do.

Mention of "Christopher and Co." reminds me of the "Histories of Middle Earth," those posthumous works Christopher Tolkien has edited into shape from the mass of disorderly manuscripts Tolkien left behind him. I recently reread the volumes devoted to the writing of "Lord of the Rings," and found it fascinating---but sometimes I thought Christopher Tolkien often misunderstood. For instance, mention is made of the end of the book giving the appearance of being written in one long burst of activity. Christopher Tolkien seemed at a loss to account for it---but, being a writer myself, I can see that J. R. R. Tolkien simply saw that the end was at hand and pushed on to it in a hurry. All my finished novels ended that way.

Other books I hated: The Baker's Boy, by JV Jones. I could never get past the first few chapters. Yawn. Also The Sword of Shannara, by Terry Brooks. I've tried to read that book I don't know how many times, and every time I get to the same place and have to quit. It's the loooong lecture of irrelevant history that does me in.

And finally, the one book I just can't stand: Siddhartha, by Herman Hesse. It's just a bit too trite for me.

I had one high school class where we read five books that were, more or less, SF. (As close as I ever came to studying one of my favorite subjects in school.) One I had read already and liked. (Clarke's "Childhood's End.") I only remember two titles among the others (Golding's "The Inheritors," and, predictably, Orwell's "1984.") There was a lot of discussion about the different cultures in these books, and I remember thinking---I could go to my bookshelf and pull five straight SF books that would illustrate this concept better. I could still. And I really didn't like the other books. (I'm pretty sure I read "1984" before hand, but didn't like it---you've got to admit it describes a depressing future---but, more recently, I picked up a couple of other Orwell books, and liked "Homage to Catalonia" very much.)

I read the first one, and LOVED it.

The DaVinci Code

I think that Mr. Brown is not a great writer, but he's something that most of us here aren't:

RICH and PUBLISHED.

This book was really hard for me to get into and read all the way through. I cant put my finger on why I didnt like it, but I didnt.

What really annoys me about this book, is that its *just* intriguing enough that I want to find out what happens and finish the series.

ok. Sigh. Im just OCD about finishing books. I can't not finish a book.

I dont understand how I loved his Otherland series so much, and Can't get into this one.

If you have a copy of _Gerald's Game_ that you are lucky enough not to have read, burn it, then scatter the ashes into the ocean, then scoop up that part of the ocean and drop it into a volcano, then launch that whole volcano into the sun.

Re: LOTR movies -- I didn't like the Aragorn dissing Arwen thing. He would NEVER have treated her like that. She would never have even considered leaving him. /shrug

I didn't like the Covenant books. But then I hate whiners.

Dune ... it gets better once you get to the last couple of books (the ones with Miles Teg in them), which are really a different story, with a fascinating ending (I thought). The "prequels" are awful, we bought them but I can't bring myself to read them.

RE: Wheel of Time. I have to say I like the series. All of it. Even the newest one. I have them all. BUT, it needs to end. Soon. I'm starting to wonder if Jordan hasn't written himself into the proverbial corner and doesn't know how to end it. Even thought I like the series, if he doesn't end it soon, I'm going to have to give up on it.

RE: Harry Potter. Read it, loved. Even though I have really enjoyed the whole series, I'm really glad there is a definite end coming. If for some reason Rowling doesn't end on 7, I will be really dissappointed.

I like series, having familiar characters and all, but somehow they need to end! These series that never end have got to stop!