| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Entreri3478 |
Posted - 27 Oct 2011 : 19:33:08
Which wildy popular fantasy author do you despise, and for what reason? |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dennis |
Posted - 13 Jun 2012 : 01:37:27
Ultimately, it depends what one is looking for. A casual friend once asked me what 'gritty' FR novel I could recommend, and obviously, I could not and so did not recommend Ed's.
If one is not looking for something in particular, then that's the time I pick from my Favorites list. Or, depending on my mood and on who's asking for it, from my Hate List. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 06 May 2012 : 02:21:14
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Thanks for the clarification, Wooly - spot on. I didn't say you had to like Ed's writing to be a fan. In fact, I wasn't a big fan of his books until after I became a die-hard Realms fan. He concentrates heavily on creating a realistic setting, and that can be distracting from the story.
As I said in my last post, world-building is hard to get 'just right' - its fairly easy to over-do it.
@Sage - I read the 'fixed' version of Spellfire, which according to Ed still wasn't perfect (it would have been twice as long if he was allowed to do everything he wanted). Maybe someday he can re-release it as a trilogy (5th edition?)
Thats not my favorite story by him - it felt too 'cinematic', and he even admits it was written to be flashy (with lots of cameos), because it was supposed to allow new fans to see a wide swath of the Realms all under one cover. Kind of a 'mad-rush, grand-tour' kind of thing. Still, he pulled it off admirably.
My desire to offer it as a suitable introduction of the Realms to new readers, is based more on the fact that Spellfire introduces many of the earliest examples of what would become the mainstays of Realms fiction -- journeying across a land full of ancient tales and ruins, fighting evil wizards, and encountering wondrous and fearful creatures.
I know and appreciate the same could be said of any Realms-novel, but Ed's earliest official works, just had something indefinably special about them, that made me feel like I was encountering a rich and unique world for the first time. Each little snippet served to draw me further in, and every little unexplained tidbit, potentially, was something I could possibly learn more about in future fiction.
That, for me at least, is what Ed's Realms are really all about. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 06 May 2012 : 01:13:18
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
He concentrates heavily on creating a realistic setting, and that can be distracting from the story.
Disagreed. What distract (and disappoint) me are the countless pointless ramblings and the 'telling' of what would happen next instead of 'showing' it. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 05 May 2012 : 17:26:31
Thanks for the clarification, Wooly - spot on. I didn't say you had to like Ed's writing to be a fan. In fact, I wasn't a big fan of his books until after I became a die-hard Realms fan. He concentrates heavily on creating a realistic setting, and that can be distracting from the story.
As I said in my last post, world-building is hard to get 'just right' - its fairly easy to over-do it.
@Sage - I read the 'fixed' version of Spellfire, which according to Ed still wasn't perfect (it would have been twice as long if he was allowed to do everything he wanted). Maybe someday he can re-release it as a trilogy (5th edition?)
Thats not my favorite story by him - it felt too 'cinematic', and he even admits it was written to be flashy (with lots of cameos), because it was supposed to allow new fans to see a wide swath of the Realms all under one cover. Kind of a 'mad-rush, grand-tour' kind of thing. Still, he pulled it off admirably.
Sadly, I never read the follow-ups to Spellfire. Not because I didn't want to, but rather because I never really found them on the store shelves. Same goes for most Elaine's novels (which is either an indication of how good they are, or how badly the book-stores keep track of what they are ordering).
RAS novels, on the other hand, can be found everywhere, in large quantities. I've even found them at those small airport kiosks. So maybe folks read whats more readily available, hmmm? This new age of downloadable books may cause a shift in this paradigm. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 May 2012 : 05:09:04
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
As much as I love the man, I will have to reluctantly admit you really need to be a 'Realms fan' to get the most out of Ed's writing.
In fact, when asked (usually by players) what I'd recommend they start with, I always say RAS novels. You have to lay a foundation before you start weighing folk down with the details. In other words, if you want to teach someone to fish, you don't bring them out in the ocean to go marlin-fishing first. You work up to it.
I had a similar problem when I first started reading the Majipoor books, but once I 'got into it', they were magical. In other cases, I felt the preponderance of the detail too much to bear (the Gormenghast novels, for instance). World-building is a tricky science, because if you do it too well, you can bore your readers.
Nah. While we're eternally grateful to Ed for sharing to us such a wonderful world, FR lore grew not only because of his input, but because of others' as well. Saying one who does not like Ed's fiction is not a real Realms fan is utterly wrong.
I agree with what you're saying, Dennis, but I think Markus was saying something other than what you thought he said. I believe that what he's saying is that a non-Realms fan -- or only a casual afficianado -- wouldn't have the same appreciation for one of Ed's FR novels as someone who is well-versed in Realmslore.
To offer an analogy: you could offer me the best wine in the world, and I wouldn't appreciate it as much as a wine-lover, because I don't care for wine. I'm a beer drinker, and other than the single bottle of cider I have most weeknights, I don't drink much alcohol at all. A dedicated wine-lover, on the other hand, would truly appreciate that fine wine in a way I never could.
Edit: typo.  |
| The Sage |
Posted - 05 May 2012 : 01:49:35
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
In fact, when asked (usually by players) what I'd recommend they start with, I always say RAS novels. You have to lay a foundation before you start weighing folk down with the details.
While I agree that laying the foundation for the Realms is very important for new readers, I don't agree with the fact that it should be a RAS novel that provides that introductory foundation. It's been my own experience with new Realms readers that both Spellfire and Swords of Eveningstar have proved to be just as beneficial when bringing new readers into Realms fiction. Simply, afterward, they want more! |
| Dennis |
Posted - 05 May 2012 : 01:38:57
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
As much as I love the man, I will have to reluctantly admit you really need to be a 'Realms fan' to get the most out of Ed's writing.
In fact, when asked (usually by players) what I'd recommend they start with, I always say RAS novels. You have to lay a foundation before you start weighing folk down with the details. In other words, if you want to teach someone to fish, you don't bring them out in the ocean to go marlin-fishing first. You work up to it.
I had a similar problem when I first started reading the Majipoor books, but once I 'got into it', they were magical. In other cases, I felt the preponderance of the detail too much to bear (the Gormenghast novels, for instance). World-building is a tricky science, because if you do it too well, you can bore your readers.
Nah. While we're eternally grateful to Ed for sharing to us such a wonderful world, FR lore grew not only because of his input, but because of others' as well. Saying one who does not like Ed's fiction is not a real Realms fan is utterly wrong.
As to world-building, it depends on several factors... Modesitt Jr.'s Recluse, for example, is filled with details, and his novels are peppered with so much details one might find 'unnecessary,' but he always weaves the story with enough fun that the reader can hardly notice the needless details. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 05 May 2012 : 01:31:24
quote:
Originally posted by entreri3478
Lol, which non-Realms Ed book did you read by mistake?
Arch Wizard, Book II of the Falconfar Saga. There were a couple of interesting parts. But mostly, it's a bore. |
| Entreri3478 |
Posted - 04 May 2012 : 16:45:20
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I had a similar problem when I first started reading the Majipoor books, but once I 'got into it', they were magical. In other cases, I felt the preponderance of the detail too much to bear (the Gormenghast novels, for instance). World-building is a tricky science, because if you do it too well, you can bore your readers.
Totally agree. Authors need enough world building to make the setting appear realistic and well planned, while still leaving enough areas ambiguous so the readers can make it their own. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 04 May 2012 : 16:31:01
As much as I love the man, I will have to reluctantly admit you really need to be a 'Realms fan' to get the most out of Ed's writing.
In fact, when asked (usually by players) what I'd recommend they start with, I always say RAS novels. You have to lay a foundation before you start weighing folk down with the details. In other words, if you want to teach someone to fish, you don't bring them out in the ocean to go marlin-fishing first. You work up to it.
I had a similar problem when I first started reading the Majipoor books, but once I 'got into it', they were magical. In other cases, I felt the preponderance of the detail too much to bear (the Gormenghast novels, for instance). World-building is a tricky science, because if you do it too well, you can bore your readers. |
| Entreri3478 |
Posted - 04 May 2012 : 14:26:48
Lol, which non-Realms Ed book did you read by mistake? |
| Dennis |
Posted - 04 May 2012 : 04:11:48
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
quote:
Originally posted by BioZach
I honestly have to punch in Mrs. Rowling as my vote. Though I like the concept of Harry Potter, her writing style has always bored me, and considering the fact she feels the need to pad out half of her longer books with uninteresting filler, she's just an author that I could never read.
Rolwing does NOT know how to write fillers. She just wants to give as much attention to each of her rather BIG cast.
Exactly.
If you dislike Rowling, you must really hate Ed's style.
Stories that jump right into the action and don't provide much background-detail (depth) are called 'pulp'. Its the format-of-choice for TV and film. They try not to establish any canon because it could just get in the way down the road (in other words, its a LOT easier to write for).
Good to read on a plane or in the bathroom, but it usually doesn't engender much of a fanbase (like everything else, there are, of course, exceptions).
Hmm. I wouldn't compare Rowling's style with Ed's. And I wouldn't immediately conclude that if one dislikes the former, then he must hate the latter. I, for one, love all of Rowling's novels. Ed is another story. While I openly praise most of his old books, I find the recent ones quite...disappointing, including one non-Realms novel I (mistakenly) read at a whim. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 03 May 2012 : 17:24:53
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I'm a big fan of Michael Moorcock, and enjoyed my fair share of Conan stories as well. Thats why I added the part about 'exceptions'. Never a huge fan of Burroughs - he beat the 'lost world' trope to death.
A good author can write in any genre in his own style and still be enjoyable.
Maybe I should have said "more dedicated fan base" (as in, rabid Fanboi/Grognardise).
Without the action/pulp genre, I doubt Gary Gygax would have been inspired to create D&D. The 'fellowship-style' epic quest is more of a campaign-arc kind of thing, and didn't become popular until much later (and most groups still prefer the one-offs for their gaming goodness).
All good pulp writers have their share of pot-boilers, and Burroughs, being the king in many ways, has the most of any. Stay as far away from the Venus books as possible, I would say that that is the only time Carter managed to surpass the originals.
Its also the fact that pulp has changed. I would say that modern series of never ending fantasy series each volume the size of a brick is as much of a pulp genre as the pre-war short stories or the short 70's swordswinger stories. In all of these a really good writer can make it into something special, whilst others manage to entertain or work in tropes that people enjoy, but without giving any real substance.
And I know I am starting to sound like a pompous arse here. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 03 May 2012 : 17:15:38
I'm a big fan of Michael Moorcock, and enjoyed my fair share of Conan stories as well. Thats why I added the part about 'exceptions'. Never a huge fan of Burroughs - he beat the 'lost world' trope to death.
A good author can write in any genre in his own style and still be enjoyable.
Maybe I should have said "more dedicated fan base" (as in, rabid Fanboi/Grognardise).
Without the action/pulp genre, I doubt Gary Gygax would have been inspired to create D&D. The 'fellowship-style' epic quest is more of a campaign-arc kind of thing, and didn't become popular until much later (and most groups still prefer the one-offs for their gaming goodness).
|
| Jorkens |
Posted - 03 May 2012 : 17:06:49
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Stories that jump right into the action and don't provide much background-detail (depth) are called 'pulp'. Its the format-of-choice for TV and film. They try not to establish any canon because it could just get in the way down the road (in other words, its a LOT easier to write for).
Good to read on a plane or in the bathroom, but it usually doesn't engender much of a fanbase (like everything else, there are, of course, exceptions).
That would then include more or less all classic American fantasy from Burroughs up until the Tolkien write-alike hysteria. One could instead say that the pulp stories centred on excitement and (in the good ones)imagination as the most important elements with the background only being what is needed for the story being told. Background is not the same as quality and a well chosen sentence can do the same work as a ten page chapter if the writer is good enough. Burroughs, Vance, Moorcock, Howard, Ashton Smith etc are good examples and every one of them can be seen as a pulp writer.
Strangely enough these writers have had a few fans. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 03 May 2012 : 16:37:14
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
quote:
Originally posted by BioZach
I honestly have to punch in Mrs. Rowling as my vote. Though I like the concept of Harry Potter, her writing style has always bored me, and considering the fact she feels the need to pad out half of her longer books with uninteresting filler, she's just an author that I could never read.
Rolwing does NOT know how to write fillers. She just wants to give as much attention to each of her rather BIG cast.
Exactly.
If you dislike Rowling, you must really hate Ed's style.
Stories that jump right into the action and don't provide much background-detail (depth) are called 'pulp'. Its the format-of-choice for TV and film. They try not to establish any canon because it could just get in the way down the road (in other words, its a LOT easier to write for).
Good to read on a plane or in the bathroom, but it usually doesn't engender much of a fanbase (like everything else, there are, of course, exceptions). |
| Entreri3478 |
Posted - 03 May 2012 : 14:23:12
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
Night of Knives was more of a short story for the fans. Obviously its not something that I would recommend to a newcomer. Start with gardens of the moons but personally i much preferred Deadhouse Gates.
I am almost finished with Gardens of the Moon and am totally hooked on this series now. I am going to immediately start Deadhouse Gates after this one! Also, since i now have a better understanding of the setting I will probably go back and re-read Night of Knives later on, and then continue with the rest of Esslemont's Malazan books.
Have you read the novellas that Erikson wrote too? |
| Dennis |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 01:32:07
quote:
Originally posted by BioZach
I honestly have to punch in Mrs. Rowling as my vote. Though I like the concept of Harry Potter, her writing style has always bored me, and considering the fact she feels the need to pad out half of her longer books with uninteresting filler, she's just an author that I could never read.
Rolwing does NOT know how to write fillers. She just wants to give as much attention to each of her rather BIG cast. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 01:30:43
quote:
Originally posted by entreri3478
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
quote:
Originally posted by entreri3478
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
Like the Valheru's mounts?
I would love to see Feist write an "ancient" Midkemia series about the Valheru and that time period.
Unfortunately, Feist already announced that the next installment to the Chaoswar saga (which will be released next year) is the very last Riftwar novel he'll write.
Does he have plans to begin an entirely new series, or just enjoy retirement? My bet is that he will be back one day to write more books for Midkemia.
People change their minds. Who knows, with great demands from his loyal and dedicated fans, he'd eventually give in and write one more trilogy, at the very least... |
| BioZach |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 01:26:18
I honestly have to punch in Mrs. Rowling as my vote. Though I like the concept of Harry Potter, her writing style has always bored me, and considering the fact she feels the need to pad out half of her longer books with uninteresting filler, she's just an author that I could never read. |
| Entreri3478 |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 14:43:02
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
quote:
Originally posted by entreri3478
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
Like the Valheru's mounts?
I would love to see Feist write an "ancient" Midkemia series about the Valheru and that time period.
Unfortunately, Feist already announced that the next installment to the Chaoswar saga (which will be released next year) is the very last Riftwar novel he'll write.
Does he have plans to begin an entirely new series, or just enjoy retirement? My bet is that he will be back one day to write more books for Midkemia. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 04:20:17
I don't often judge authors simply on the basis of one aspect of their writing. I really need to expose myself to their entire catalogue of storytelling and other associated material -- or as close to everything they've published so far -- before I can convince myself whether or not I've enjoyed a particular author's style.
Take Mel Odom, for example. I'm not particularly fond of his BATTLETECH novels, but at the same time, I've found myself being unable to put down his Realms novels. So if I left my reading experience of Odom's work only on the basis of what I'd read with his BATTLETECH fiction, then I probably wouldn't have bothered with his Realms tales. And that would have been unfortunate, considering how much I've enjoyed them.
So, like I said above, I need to read almost everything from a particular author before I can ultimately decide whether I wish to continue with their works. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 03:43:24
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Thrasymachus
I don’t really "despise" any author or their works.
Agreed.
I can't find ever say there are authors I love to hate. Even if I don't like a particular example of their work, I'll always try to find something in their catalogue of material that I can enjoy. And that's almost always the outcome for authors I'm not particularly fond of.
Oh, I tried. But 'overall impact' is what matters most.
Try to imagine yourself the judge in American Idol. The contestant exhibits confidence and really looks good (star-quality, if you like), but barely hits the notes...
One bad quality can destroy the entire performance.
The same goes with writing. One aspect can ruin your reading experience. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 03:38:22
quote:
Originally posted by entreri3478
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
Like the Valheru's mounts?
I would love to see Feist write an "ancient" Midkemia series about the Valheru and that time period.
Unfortunately, Feist already announced that the next installment to the Chaoswar saga (which will be released next year) is the very last Riftwar novel he'll write. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Apr 2012 : 01:36:56
quote:
Originally posted by Thrasymachus
I don’t really "despise" any author or their works.
Agreed.
I can't find ever say there are authors I love to hate. Even if I don't like a particular example of their work, I'll always try to find something in their catalogue of material that I can enjoy. And that's almost always the outcome for authors I'm not particularly fond of. |
|
|
