# Will I like Dragonlance books?



## Vigwyn the Unruly (Jun 10, 2007)

I have the opportunity to read Dragons of Autumn Twilight, Dragons of Winter Night, and Dragons of Spring Dawning. However, I have many committments and very limited time, so I don't want to waste my time if these are no good.

To give you an idea of my tastes:
I loved Lord of the Rings (not so much the movies).
I hated Eregon.
I liked the first 4 Harry Potter Books (though I think the movies are better), but hated 5 and 6.

What do you think--will I like the Dragonlance books?

Thanks in advance for any insights.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 11, 2007)

Sure.  You'll like them.


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 11, 2007)

*ten*

Vig,

Considering they're a little more adult in some ways than Eregon (not to mention better written in places), I'd say you'll like them. However I personally enjoyed the Legends Trilogy better.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 11, 2007)

I think it depends upon what you like.  It has been years since I read them, but what stuck with me more than anything was the characters.  I really grew to like the characters very quickly.  Overall the story itself is standard fantasy fare, but there is something about the way the characters were written that really took me in.  I think Harry Potter did it as well, which is why I enjoyed them as well.

Eregon was not one of the worst books I've read, but it took some effort to keep going.  I didn't care about the characters very much and the story was predictible enough that I didn't feel compelled to stay up late and read one more chapter.  I put it down and went to sleep when it was time to do so with no difficulty at all.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 11, 2007)

Do you like English language prose?

If yes, then no.


----------



## Olive (Jun 11, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Do you like English language prose?
> 
> If yes, then no.




Harsh.

Yeah, you'll probably like them if you like fantasy books. I read them for the first time when I was about 11, but reread them in my mid-20s and was surprised how much I still enjoyed them. The characters are pretty one dimensional, but fun and as Thornir says, really likeable.


----------



## Jhamin (Jun 11, 2007)

I have to give a dissenting opinion.

I read them when I was 11 and thought they were the greatest, deepest, most evocative things I had ever read.  I re-read them when I was 20 and was aghast at how wooden they were.

Most of the major plot points are out and out stolen from the Lord of the Rings (I know that is pretty commont with fantasy, but Dragonlance is pretty egregious) and the authors handling of the characters is very uneven.  A few are really origional, but most are cliches or stock race/class combos with nothing else to distinguish hem.


I think they work best when your reading level is too low to really appreciate the Lord of the Rings and you won't spot how much of it is stolen from other places.  After you can spot how much of a pastache it is, the series doesn't have nearly the luster.

I'd personally reccomend the first three books from the Wizard of Earthsea series (which bear little resemblence to the sci-fi channel movie).  If you like them, stop after the third book, which was written 20 years later and with a very different political agenda.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 11, 2007)

My experience was similar to Jhamin. I read them at 13 and again at 30, and the books weren't at all like I remembered. I found very little likeability in the characters, and boy do they whine (specially Tanis).


----------



## Mallus (Jun 11, 2007)

Olive said:
			
		

> Harsh.



Deserved.



> The characters are pretty one dimensional, but fun and as Thornir says, really likeable.



See, I _liked_ the characters, and I even thought some of the relationships, well, one at least, was actually pretty terrific. But as I read them, I kept saying to myself, "How can such awful writers write such good characters? This is like, a paradox, or something".

At the sentence level the original DL trilogy --I didn't make it any farther-- is some of the worst writing I've ever read. Weiss and Hickman's clumsy attempt at 'epic' prose seriously gets in the way of story they're telling, unlike, say David Eddings, who'll never be accused of greatness, but at least his prose style is clear, simple and unobtrusive. 

So, if you really care about the individual sentences that make up a novel, stay the hell away from those books. If you don't, well, at least they _do_ have redeeming qualities.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 11, 2007)

Jhamin said:
			
		

> I'd personally reccomend the first three books from the Wizard of Earthsea series (which bear little resemblence to the sci-fi channel movie).  If you like them, stop after the third book, which was written 20 years later and with a very different political agenda.



Excellent advice. The original Earthsea trilogy is one for the ages, while book 4, _Tehannu_, can best be described, if you're feeling particularly charitable, as a mistake.


----------



## Matchstick (Jun 11, 2007)

Given a limited amount of time there's a heck of lot of other fantasy books I would rank above DragonLance on a reading list.  

I read DragonLance once, when I was about 11, and after having read the Lord of the Rings.  I made it through, but even though I've tried since then I can't even make it past the first book.  They just aren't that good.

I'd say clarify more of what you like, and see what other recommendations you can get.  Personally I'd say maybe some Terry Pratchett (Wee Free Men), Glen Cook (Bitter Gold Hearts), Paul Edwin Zimmer (Gathering of Heroes), or Jim Butcher (Dresden Files).  Any and all would be worlds better than DL.


----------



## Randolpho (Jun 11, 2007)

I very much enjoyed the original Dragonlance Trilogy, but I have to agree with some of the critics: it's not the best writing in the world. It does have an interesting plot, characters and setting, however. Overall, it's an enjoyable series. It goes downhill after the second trilogy, and only the Weiss/Hickman books are decent enough to be enjoyable. Avoid the "final" trilogy, however. 

I don't know why Jhamin thinks it rips off LotR -- if anything, it's closer to *anti* LotR. I suppose the Forestmaster might be considered "Galadrielish", but that's a stretch -- even then, it doesn't make the entire series LotRish.


----------



## Wereserpent (Jun 11, 2007)

Ignore anyone who tells you not to read them.  They are wrong.  Read all the DL books you can get your hands on.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 11, 2007)

Galeros said:
			
		

> They are wrong



Oh yeah?!


----------



## Crothian (Jun 11, 2007)

The only way to know is to read them.  They are not long so it really is not a huge time commitment.  And plenty of people have liked them even ones over the age of 20.


----------



## GSHamster (Jun 11, 2007)

Quite honestly, probably not.  They are decent books, and I find them enjoyable, but they are definitely Tier 2 or 3 books.  You sound like a person who only likes Tier 1 books (and really doesn't have time for Tier 2/3).

I'd recommend authors like Ursula K. LeGuin, John C. Wright, Guy Gavriel Kay, Tad Williams, China Mieville*.

*I dislike China Mieville, but he is definately a Tier 1 author.


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 11, 2007)

It'd be easier to answer your question if you gave more examples of the stuff you like, but off-hand, if you liked the LotR novels _because_ of the way they were written rather than _despite_ the way they were written, I'd say avoid Dragonlance.

In fact, I'd also say avoid Dragonlance like the plague, because life is short and there are tons of better authors out there. Which is not really saying much - I'm not trying to be malicious, but the Dragonlance novels are some of the worst fantasy books out there, on par with Eragon, though without the excuse of having been written by a child.

Try Williams, Brust, Martin, Erikson, Gaiman, Bujold, Wolfe, Powers... even Mieville and Pullman (though I hate them both, they can write), instead.


----------



## Wereserpent (Jun 11, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Oh yeah?!




YEAH!


----------



## Randolpho (Jun 11, 2007)

Galeros said:
			
		

> Ignore anyone who tells you not to read them.  They are wrong.  Read all the DL books you can get your hands on.



 I wouldn't go *that* far. I'd say Vig should definitely read the original trilogy (Dragons of Autumn/Winter/Spring) and probably the second trilogy ([X]of the Twins), but should only read the rest if (s)he absolutely loves the setting.

But be forewarned, Vig --  the quality (such as it is) goes *down* from there.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 11, 2007)

The writing in the Chronicles starts out *terrible* but rapidly rises to the level of mediocre or even decent.  These were the first published Weiss and Hickman novels, and it shows.  Some of the transitions are downright bizarre (and owe to TSR's oddball injunction to only spoil some, rather than all, of the module series).

Other than the prose, however, the Chronicles are actually quite good Epic Fantasy; I would actually rank them well above some of the better-written examples above in terms of entertainment value; I was pleasantly surprised to find I still liked them when I reread them this year.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 11, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Try Williams, Brust, Martin, Erikson, Gaiman, Bujold, Wolfe, Powers...



Nice list. 

I'd throw R. Scott Bakkar into the mix, too. His _Prince of Nothing_ books are my favorite new fantasy...


----------



## Wereserpent (Jun 11, 2007)

Randolpho said:
			
		

> But be forewarned, Vig --  the quality (such as it is) goes *up* from there.




FIFY!


----------



## Mallus (Jun 11, 2007)

Galeros said:
			
		

> YEAH!



Touché...

Seriously though, I can understand enjoying _Dragonlance_... it all depends what you're reading for. I think their prose is a like a hot needle to the optic nerve, but some people, with higher pain thresholds, I imagine, can see past their actual words straight away into the story, which admittedly, isn't half bad.


----------



## Wereserpent (Jun 11, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Touché...
> 
> Seriously though, I can understand enjoying _Dragonlance_... it all depends what you're reading for. I think their prose is a like a hot needle to the optic nerve, but some people, with higher pain thresholds, I imagine, can see past their actual words straight away into the story, which admittedly, isn't half bad.




I do not find the writing in any DL book really bad.  I can not understand why so many people claim it is bad.  One of the major reasons I like it too is because of the world.  Sure, there may be other fantasy books out there, but they do not have the Knights of Solamnia, or the Tinker Gnomes, or the Wizards of High Sorcery, the Legion of Steel, the Knights of Neraka, Wild Sorcery, and Mysticism.  I like both the writing in the books and the world.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 11, 2007)

Galeros said:
			
		

> I do not find the writing in any DL book really bad.  I can not understand why so many people claim it is bad.



Because, while it has some fun ideas, some neat scenes and some likable characters, they're all delivered with all the writing panache of a below-grade-level 7th grader.

It doesn't make someone a bad person if they like the novels, but enjoying a Twinkie doesn't make it great cuisine.


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 12, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Nice list.
> 
> I'd throw R. Scott Bakkar into the mix, too. His _Prince of Nothing_ books are my favorite new fantasy...




Good point, I somehow skipped over Baker.


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 12, 2007)

*four*

*is glad someone mentioned Bakker* His works have been a wonderful blend of 1,001 Arabian Nights and classic post-modern fantasy.


Anyway read Dragonlance and decide for yourself. While I've moved on to other works, some of the characters, especially Raistilin stick with me.


----------



## phoenixgod2000 (Jun 12, 2007)

*Bah to Bakkar!*



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> Nice list.
> 
> I'd throw R. Scott Bakkar into the mix, too. His _Prince of Nothing_ books are my favorite new fantasy...




wow, I read Bakkar because of a recomendation and honestly, while he has a lot of good ideas, I found his characters to be navel gazers of the worst sort.  All they do is have the same arguements over and over again and move the plot forward once every hundred pages. I'm halfway through the third book and I can barely maintain enough interest to read a few pages a night.

As for Dragonlance, I believe that Raistlin Majere (one of the main characters) is one of my top five favorite fantasy characters ever and speaking as someone who has a heart of ice, several DL novels have scenes which genuinely choke me up--and choke up my father and he hates fantasy.

I would also check out the Deathstalker series by Simon Green.  Most fun Space Opera since Star Wars.


----------



## Wereserpent (Jun 12, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Because, while it has some fun ideas, some neat scenes and some likable characters, they're all delivered with all the writing panache of a below-grade-level 7th grader.
> 
> It doesn't make someone a bad person if they like the novels, but enjoying a Twinkie doesn't make it great cuisine.




I do not think I will ever convince you heathens that Dragonlance is like holy ambrosia.


----------



## Mycanid (Jun 12, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Because, while it has some fun ideas, some neat scenes and some likable characters, they're all delivered with all the writing panache of a below-grade-level 7th grader.
> 
> It doesn't make someone a bad person if they like the novels, but enjoying a Twinkie doesn't make it great cuisine.




Afraid I agree with the good dwarf ... after all, we fellow underdark citizens have somewhat similar tastes.

I really didn't enjoy DL myself.  :\

I guess one of the main reasons was the cardboard like characters. I just didn't "jive" with them. (The kender were one of the biggest turnoffs for me, admittedly.) The first three books were tolerable. After that it got old and dreadfully boring for me....


----------



## Klaus (Jun 12, 2007)

Y'know, I kind of liked the comic book adaptations of the first two Chronicles better than the novels.

The comic book adaptation for Dragons of Spring Dawning is still forthcoming.


----------



## Mycanid (Jun 12, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Y'know, I kind of liked the comic book adaptations of the first two Chronicles better than the novels.
> 
> The comic book adaptation for Dragons of Spring Dawning is still forthcoming.




Hmm ... here's an idea. I haven't heard of these.... Can you give us a brief review/summary Klaus?

Maybe these would be better to start with for the OP if he is crunched for time?


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jun 12, 2007)

_Dragons of Autumn Twilight_ has been described by its own authors as "not their best work" and "rather obviously their first novel". The book is so close to a gaming session you can almost hear the dice clatter on the table.

The subsequent novels are far superior to the first. The first you kind of have to just....get by.


----------



## jonesy (Jun 12, 2007)

Blanket statements like "they all go downhill after" or "everything not by W&H sucks" are really really horrible.  :\

I own about a 130 of them, and there's some very good stuff there, better than what W&H have written.

Try the ones by Knaak (Huma, Kaz and generally anything about minotaurs), Pierson (the Taladas and Kingpriest trilogies) and Kirchoff (Defenders of Magic). They even write in such a way that you don't really need to know anything about the place beforehand.


----------



## Wereserpent (Jun 12, 2007)

jonesy said:
			
		

> Blanket statements like "they all go downhill after" or "everything not by W&H sucks" are really really horrible.  :\
> 
> I own about a 130 of them, and there's some very good stuff there, better than what W&H have written.
> 
> Try the ones by Knaak (Huma, Kaz and generally anything about minotaurs), Pierson (the Taladas and Kingpriest trilogies) and Kirchoff (Defenders of Magic). They even write in such a way that you don't really need to know anything about the place beforehand.




I agree 110%.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 12, 2007)

phoenixgod2000 said:
			
		

> I found his characters to be navel gazers of the worst sort.



I more or less loved them, especially Achamian. I think what you're calling navel gazing I'd call 'fleshing out wonderfully human characters who also happen to be epic level monks and sorcerers'. 



> All they do is have the same arguements over and over again and move the plot forward once every hundred pages.



That's a gross misrepresentation of the novels. More so than any recent fantasy they have a beginning, middle, and end. It is the story of the Crusade, from the political machinations at it's inception to the eventual siege of the Holy City, plus the gradual revelation of connections to several more ancient conflicts. A lot happens. 

Besides, it's also _Nietzsche Christ Überstar_... that has to count for something. 



> As for Dragonlance, I believe that Raistlin Majere (one of the main characters) is one of my top five favorite fantasy characters ever...



Raistlin _is_ a good character. Good enough that he survived Weiss and Hickman's attempts at portraying him. 

If you liked him, you should check out C.S. Friedman's _Coldfire Trilogy_ for the character of Gerrald Tarrant. I think you'd like them. Friedman's another author whose prose does nothing for me, but manages to spin a good yarn any way.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 12, 2007)

Galeros said:
			
		

> I do not find the writing in any DL book really bad.  I can not understand why so many people claim it is bad.




Because compared to the very good fantasy books out there, it is pretty bad. There are literally dozens of fantasy books I would read (and have read) before getting around to bothering with any _Dragonlance_ novels. Books by Lloyd Alexander, Susan Cooper, Andre Norton, H. Warner Munn, Fritz Lieber, Michael Moocock, Guy Gavriel Kay, Larry Niven, Orson Scott Card, Poul Anderson, Lois McMaster Bujold, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Lin Carter, C.J. Cherryh, China Mieville, and on and on. Heck, I'd even read some Piers Anthony before I worried about the _Dragonlance_ stuff.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jun 12, 2007)

If you haven't read George R.R. Martin, do so.  It is slightly different fantasy (less fantastic, more realistic, more gritty), but I personally think it is the best modern fantasy since Tolkein.

Storm Raven's list of authors is also excellent.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 13, 2007)

Galeros said:
			
		

> I do not think I will ever convince you heathens that Dragonlance is like holy ambrosia.



I think you are correct, there.


----------



## Wereserpent (Jun 13, 2007)

I would also like to add that Thompson & Cook are great DL authors too!


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jun 13, 2007)

Overall dragonlance books tend toward the mediocre with notable exceptions in either direction.  The original trilogy is fairly decent, better toward the end than beginning though even when I first read it I thought it was kind of flat.  
The two books about the draconian regiment _Doom Brigade_, and _Draconian Measures_ are fairly solid, but not great.  Overall I've got a limited budget for books and I spend more on sci-fi than on fantasy.


----------



## phoenixgod2000 (Jun 13, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I more or less loved them, especially Achamian. I think what you're calling navel gazing I'd call 'fleshing out wonderfully human characters who also happen to be epic level monks and sorcerers'.
> 
> Most of them are human, although my problem with Kelhus is that he isn't human enough. I don''t want to root for him, I don't care about him, I just sort of enjoy watching him play puppetmaster, but I'm not even sure to what end anymore.  I don't think they are well fleshed out.  Martin does a far better job of showing characters personal journeys as the backdrop to the plot, managing to juggle both pretty effectively.  In Bakkar, the plot just grinds to a halt every time a character starts to agonize over something.  Achamian and Esmenet are particularly bad at that--especially when they are together.
> 
> ...


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 13, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> If you haven't read George R.R. Martin, do so.  It is slightly different fantasy (less fantastic, more realistic, more gritty), but I personally think it is the best modern fantasy since Tolkein.
> 
> Storm Raven's list of authors is also excellent.




I knew I left out some good stuff - yes, read Martin. Also, add to the list I put up previously Ursula K. LeGuin, C.S. Lewis, Patricia McKillip, and Gene Wolfe. I am certain I have _still_ forgotten some good stuff. The list of good fantasy authors is as long as my arm. Unless you read four to five books per week (as I do), you will likely never need to resort to the ghetto of licensed fiction.


----------



## Wereserpent (Jun 13, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I knew I left out some good stuff - yes, read Martin. Also, add to the list I put up previously Ursula K. LeGuin, C.S. Lewis, Patricia McKillip, and Gene Wolfe. I am certain I have _still_ forgotten some good stuff. The list of good fantasy authors is as long as my arm. Unless you read four to five books per week (as I do), you will likely never need to resort to the ghetto of licensed fiction.




I hate the stuff you like.  

I am sure those authors are fine, but I still like Dragonlance AND Forgotten Realms fiction.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 13, 2007)

I wonder if Vigwyn the Unruly made a choice or if the bickering kept him away.


----------



## Vigwyn the Unruly (Jun 14, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I wonder if Vigwyn the Unruly made a choice or if the bickering kept him away.



I think I have decided to read something else instead. I don't have much time, so I don't want to waste it with something I'm going to be disappointed in.

However, the book I have is the annotated version of the original three books, so I'll keep it in case I ever get more time, get really bored, or just get curious.

Thanks to everyone for their input. I now have a long list of authors I need to check out.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 14, 2007)

Galeros said:
			
		

> I hate the stuff you like.




You hate the bulk of written works that constitute fantasy fiction?

(And no, licensed D&D books don't count, those are entirely derivative, and for most of them not worth the paper they are printed upon).


----------



## Wereserpent (Jun 14, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> You hate the bulk of written works that constitute fantasy fiction?
> 
> (And no, licensed D&D books don't count, those are entirely derivative, and for most of them not worth the paper they are printed upon).




I was joking.  

I am sure they are good books, I just have not gotten around to reading them yet.


----------



## Wereserpent (Jun 14, 2007)

Vigwyn the Unruly said:
			
		

> I think I have decided to read something else instead. I don't have much time, so I don't want to waste it with something I'm going to be disappointed in.




You won't be.  Read them first.


----------



## ShadowX (Jun 14, 2007)

The first book is rather terrible, the next two are definitely a notch up, but I think the pinnacle is reached in the Twins novels.  Raistlin is just dang cool.

As for Bakker, anyone that reads fantasy must have a certain patience because fantasy novels are often plodding affairs, but Bakker really stretched my tolerance.  The third book, especially, is complete tripe that suffers one of the most unfulfilling endings I have ever read.  It doesn't help that he peppers the books with tepid discussions of "philosophy" that assure me why he is writing novels now rather than utilizing his PhD for more intellectual pursuits.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 14, 2007)

ShadowX said:
			
		

> ...anyone that reads fantasy must have a certain patience because fantasy novels are often plodding affairs...



QFT!



> ...but Bakker really stretched my tolerance...



See, I found them exhilarating. 



> It doesn't help that he peppers the books with tepid discussions of "philosophy" that assure me why he is writing novels now rather than utilizing his PhD for more intellectual pursuits.



Would you have liked it better if Kellhaus explained the concept of _a priori_ knowledge while punching the sh*t out of alien homunculi? Wait, didn't he?


----------



## Mallus (Jun 14, 2007)

Vigwyn the Unruly said:
			
		

> I think I have decided to read something else instead.



You have chosen well, Grasshopper.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 14, 2007)

Galeros said:
			
		

> I was joking.
> 
> I am sure they are good books, I just have not gotten around to reading them yet.




If you have not read at least one book each of these authors -

George R.R. Martin
Ursula K. LeGuin
C.S. Lewis
Patricia McKillip
Gene Wolfe
Lloyd Alexander
Susan Cooper
Andre Norton
H. Warner Munn
Fritz Lieber
Michael Moocock
Guy Gavriel Kay
Larry Niven
Orson Scott Card
Poul Anderson
Lois McMaster Bujold
Edgar Rice Burroughs
Lin Carter
C.J. Cherryh
China Mieville
Piers Anthony
Roger Zelazny
Jack Vance
Fred Saberhagen
Robert Silverberg

and

Terry Pratchett

(and probably a few others, like Diana Wynne Jones and Tanith Lee) . . .

. . . then I just don't see how you can be a reasonably well-read fantasy fan (I didn't list Tolkien, but he sort of goes without saying).


----------



## Bayushi Seikuro (Jun 14, 2007)

I've only ever read the first trilogy.

I did, and still do, enjoy them.  I agree also that it's not word-heavy, but there is a flow to it.

I think the objections people have about the way the kender Tasslehoff Burrfoot is written is because of the way it's shaped halflings in D&D sessions, much the same way people dislike any dual-weapon wielding drow 

One thing I really enjoyed is that the characters do all change during the course of the novels.  Some might be heavy changes, like the deaths, both pointless and heroic; others are more about growing into accepting who you are.  There is one part that always brings tears to m' eyes, even now -- the part discussing about a certain woodcarver sitting under a tree, waiting for his friend to show up and irritate him.  Kind of really shaped how I visualize people being dead.

But, I digress.  I agree with the sentiment of: the only way you'll know if you'll like them is to read them.  They're not terribly long or complicated, so I don't see it as a heavy time investment.


----------



## Wereserpent (Jun 14, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> You have chosen well, Grasshopper.




I hope he reconsiders.  

Sorry Mallus and Storm Raven, I mean no offense to both of yall, I am just reccomending what I think are good books.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 14, 2007)

Galeros said:
			
		

> Sorry Mallus



This is all in good fun. Unless, of course, the OP reads Dragonlance.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 14, 2007)

The books are fine.  I found therm to be better then some of the authors that got listed and worse then others.  I think Dragonlance is important for D&D gamers to read since it is a good look at a D&D campaign might be.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 14, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I think Dragonlance is important for D&D gamers to read since it is a good look at a D&D campaign might be.



You mean like, bad?  

Raymond Feist does a better job in the Midkemia/Kelewan novels, and his prose style causes less cancer.


----------



## jonesy (Jun 16, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> You mean like, bad?
> 
> Raymond Feist does a better job in the Midkemia/Kelewan novels, and his prose style causes less cancer.



Yes yes, everyone gets it already. You don't like Dragonlance.

It's just so ridiculous when you lump 200 novels (that's about how many there are now) into the category "bad" just because you disliked the first three.

And having read 171 of them I have to tell you that I rank the Chronicles very low. The only reason nowadays for me to place them in any must read DL books list is because it's always good to know how things began.

Over 200 books. 50 something authors. Do you really believe that there can't be good stories, or capable writers, in a selection that massive? And what amazes me most is how anyone can judge something after having sampled less than 1.5% of it?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 16, 2007)

jonesy said:
			
		

> Over 200 books. 50 something authors. Do you really believe that there can't be good stories, or capable writers, in a selection that massive? And what amazes me most is how anyone can judge something after having sampled less than 1.5% of it?




Yes. Licensed fiction is almost entirely crap. Authors who are good when writing their own stuff almost always produce crap when constrained to write licensed material. The Dragonlance books range from mediocre to downright awful. I would suggest someone read Jordan or Modesitt before they delve into Dragonlance, and their books are turgidly long and slow. Norman's books are better than the bulk of Dragonlance books (and, for that matter, the bulk of D&D tie in books too), and he is scraping the bottom of the barrel.


----------



## jonesy (Jun 16, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yes. Licensed fiction is almost entirely crap. Authors who are good when writing their own stuff almost always produce crap when constrained to write licensed material.



More blanket statements. Most of those are crap too. Anyone can make up statistics.

Don't kid yourself. The best writers (read: popular) get a lot of freedoms when given outlines for what to write. Like Knaak and Pierson.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 17, 2007)

jonesy said:
			
		

> More blanket statements. Most of those are crap too. Anyone can make up statistics.




You might have noticed the "almost always" - perhaps you should realize what that means. I'm not sure what you mean by "making up statistics", since I didn't use _any_ statistics at all in my post. We may be getting to the root cause of your liking for the literary dregs that constitue licensed fiction.



> _Don't kid yourself. The best writers (read: popular) get a lot of freedoms when given outlines for what to write. Like Knaak and Pierson._




And yet, the licensed fiction they have produced, is crap.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 17, 2007)

OK, anyone who continues beating this poor dead draconian any further after this point has to go read "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell," just because it's awesome and no one's mentioned it on this thread yet.


----------



## jonesy (Jun 17, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> You might have noticed the "almost always" - perhaps you should realize what that means. I'm not sure what you mean by "making up statistics", since I didn't use _any_ statistics at all in my post.



"Licensed fiction is almost entirely crap" is a statistic, and one I consider very flawed. But whatever man, the only step left in the argument seems to be the - no it's not, yes it is, you're a doodyhead, no you are - type so I'm just going to forget this yet another DL bash and leave you in your illusions.



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> OK, anyone who continues beating this poor dead draconian any further after this point has to go read "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell," just because it's awesome and no one's mentioned it on this thread yet.



Now there's something I can agree with completely.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 17, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Y'know, I kind of liked the comic book adaptations of the first two Chronicles better than the novels.
> 
> The comic book adaptation for Dragons of Spring Dawning is still forthcoming.




they did the same with the Drizzt books of the Forgotten Realms.



as for the OP by VtheU. i say give them a go. you will like them or you won't. they are pretty much very similar for the first 6. and most of the revision work or fallout from the first 6. the ones after are somewhat different but pay homage/notoriety to the original cast of characters


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 18, 2007)

jonesy said:
			
		

> "Licensed fiction is almost entirely crap" is a statistic,




No, it is not. If you think it is, well, then there just isn't any helping you.



> _going to forget this yet another DL bash and leave you in your illusions._




I'm not sure how pointing out that every single Dragonlance related book (and almost every licensed title I have ever read) demonstrates weak to awful writing is an "illusion". I have read plenty of Dragonlance. They range from mediocre to really, truly, putrid.

I'm sorry that this evaluation upsets your delicate sensibilities. Actually, I'm not - since the books are not very good, and advocating them as worth reading is simply cruel. My opinion of the Dragonlance books remains the same, however, since it is based upon reading several of the things.

I'm going to go read something worthwhile now - probably some Niven.


----------



## jonesy (Jun 18, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, it is not.



Then there's a fault in the translation and I don't know how, or why, to explain it.



> I'm not sure how pointing out that every single Dragonlance related book (and almost every licensed title I have ever read) demonstrates weak to awful writing is an "illusion".



Because it makes you appear someone arrogant enough to presume that the things you dislike couldn't possible appear worthwhile to anyone else. People like different things and you can't cordon their likes and dislikes into clear categories, especially not the same ones you are placing your own into. I'm sorry if it baffles you that I like both Dragonlance and (say) Niven, but I do. That there seems to be a need to keep calling them names makes it look like you are trying to convince yourself more than anyone else. Just as it baffles me why anyone would be so vehemently hostile towards a piece of literature. There's a billion different novels out there and I don't expect to like all of them, but neither do I expect everyone else to hate the ones I don't like.


----------



## GSHamster (Jun 18, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how pointing out that every single Dragonlance related book (and almost every licensed title I have ever read) demonstrates weak to awful writing is an "illusion". I have read plenty of Dragonlance. They range from mediocre to really, truly, putrid.




Out of curiousity, why do you keep reading them?

I'm not really sure how to trust the judgement of a man who reads plenty of mediocre to really, truly, putrid books.


----------



## amethal (Jun 18, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> If you have not read at least one book each of these authors -
> . . . then I just don't see how you can be a reasonably well-read fantasy fan



George R.R. Martin *Yes* 
Ursula K. LeGuin *Yes* 
C.S. Lewis *Yes* 
Patricia McKillip *NO* 
Gene Wolfe *Yes* 
Lloyd Alexander *NO* 
Susan Cooper *Yes* 
Andre Norton *Yes* 
H. Warner Munn *NO* 
Fritz Lieber *Yes* 
Michael Moocock *Yes* 
Guy Gavriel Kay *Yes* 
Larry Niven *Yes - but only sci-fi* 
Orson Scott Card *Yes - but only sci-fi* 
Poul Anderson *Yes* 
Lois McMaster Bujold *NO* 
Edgar Rice Burroughs *Yes* 
Lin Carter *Yes* 
C.J. Cherryh *Yes* 
China Mieville *Yes* 
Piers Anthony *Yes* 
Roger Zelazny *Yes* 
Jack Vance *Yes* 
Fred Saberhagen *NO* 
Robert Silverberg *Yes - but only sci-fi* 
Terry Pratchett *Yes* 

So I guess I'm nothing like a well read fantasy fan.

Its a shame Terry Brooks, Weis & Hickman, R.A. Salvatore, David Gemmell, Janny Wurts, Raymond E Feist, Mercedes Lackey, Bernard Cornwell, Stephen Donaldson, Stephen Lawhead, Lord Dunsany, Mervin Peake, Ray Bradbury, Rudyard Kipling, E.R. Eddison, M John Harrison, Sheri S. Tepper and a host of others I have read don't count.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 18, 2007)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> Out of curiousity, why do you keep reading them?




I don't really any more. I read the first couple series when they first came out, which were mediocre to bad. I gave up on them then. Since then, I have had people tell me "oh, but this series is _really good_", so I went through a phase where I would take them up on their recommendations and try them. I was pretty much universally disappointed.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 18, 2007)

amethal said:
			
		

> Patricia McKillip *NO*




Read _The Riddle Master of Hed_, _Heir of Sea and Fire_ and _Harpist in the Wind_. You can also try _The Forgotten Beasts of Eld_, which is a standalone.



> _Lloyd Alexander *NO*_




The Chronicles of Prydain is a must. The Westmark series is good too.



> _H. Warner Munn *NO*_




_Merlin's Godson_ and _Merlin's Ring_ are the books of his to read.



> _Larry Niven *Yes - but only sci-fi*_




_The Magic Goes Away_ and the follow-ons to that are the ones to look at.



> _Orson Scott Card *Yes - but only sci-fi*_




The entire Alvin Maker series is a must. _Enchantment_ and _Hart's Hope_ are good too.



> _Lois McMaster Bujold *NO*_




_The Curse of Chalion_, _Paladin of Souls_ and _The Hallowed Hunt_ are a must.



> [/i]Fred Saberhagen *NO*[/i]




The Swords series is where to go for him. His Berserker books (which are science fiction) are also quite good.



> _Robert Silverberg *Yes - but only sci-fi*_




The Majipoor Chronicles is the place to start. _Gilgamesh the King_ is good too. I'd suggest _The Book of Skulls_ but that is a more contemporary fantasy.



> _So I guess I'm nothing like a well read fantasy fan._




Close, but not quite.   



> _Its a shame Terry Brooks, Weis & Hickman, R.A. Salvatore, David Gemmell, Janny Wurts, Raymond E Feist, Mercedes Lackey, Bernard Cornwell, Stephen Donaldson, Stephen Lawhead, Lord Dunsany, Mervin Peake, Ray Bradbury, Rudyard Kipling, E.R. Eddison, M John Harrison, Sheri S. Tepper and a host of others I have read don't count._




Brooks is really derivative, which is why I left him off the list. Weiss, Hickman, and Salvatore really haven't done much worth reading, at least none of their stuff I have read is worth recommending. Gemmell is good, but not a must. Wurts, Lackey, and Feist are, in my opinion, clearly second tier authors. Cornwell doesn't write fantasy, he writes historical fiction. I like Donaldson, but some events in his most famous series squicks a lot of people out, so I never recommend him to people I don't know. Lawhead is okay, but the Arthur ground has been covered better by other authors. Dunsany is hard to recommend, as it is difficult for a lot of people to read; Eddison is in the same category. Leaving Peake off was an oversight. I haven't read any Bradbury that would be properly classified as fantasy, except maybe _Something Wicked This Way Comes_, and that was not really on par with his best works. Kipling's fantastical works aren't really fantasy per se, more like contemporary horror, although I may have missed something of his. I left M. John Harrison off for the same reason I left Samuel R. Delany off - his work is too weird in some ways to be considered a must. As for Tepper, the only stuff of hers I have read are the Mavin Manyshaped books, and I wasn't overly impressed.

I could have listed numerous authors that _neither_ of us mentioned, but they aren't "musts" in my opinion like the guys I did list.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 18, 2007)

jonesy said:
			
		

> Because it makes you appear someone arrogant enough to presume that the things you dislike couldn't possible appear worthwhile to anyone else.




The OP asked if he would like Dragonlance books. In my opinion, every Dragonlance book I read was time I could have spent reading something else that would have been better. In my opinion, almost all licensed fiction is crap (no matter the license or the writer - _Star Wars_, _Star Trek_, _D&D_, and so on).



> _People like different things and you can't cordon their likes and dislikes into clear categories, especially not the same ones you are placing your own into._




Except when your tastes are clearly flawed, such as when you enjoy reading really bad books.   



> _Just as it baffles me why anyone would be so vehemently hostile towards a piece of literature._



_

Because the Dragonlance books are, for the most part, really, really bad, and the OP would be much better off reading the phone book than wasting his time on them._


----------



## amethal (Jun 18, 2007)

I've read The Book of Skulls. Its sci-fi. 

http://www.sfsite.com/04b/bs79.htm

I've also read the Majipoor series. Classified them as sci-fi personally, but anyway since I've read a couple of dozen of Robert Silverberg's books I think we could probably give me a Yes on Silverberg.

Ray Bradbury
http://www.sfsite.com/03a/sw219.htm

Rudyard Kipling
http://www.sfsite.com/grx/orion/mklg.jpg

Sheri S Tepper
http://www.sfsite.com/07b/be108.htm

Thanks for a useful reply to my fairly snarky post. I'll check out the books you recommend.

Have you read Weis and Hickman's Death Gate Cycle? I liked it.

Have you read Lion of Macedon? It made my 5 all time favourites list on another thread, so there's certainly no "but" after "Gemmell is good".

Magician also made it to my all time list. If you've read it and don't rate Raymond E. Feist as tier one, then I guess we have to agree to disagree.

Have you read Bernard Cornwell's Arthurian novels, starting with The Winter King? They ain't historical.

I mentioned Brooks and Salvatore for a reason. How do you know they are derivative? Have you read them?

I suppose one of the joys of the English language is that I can interpret "well read" as "having read a lot", but you might have meant "read a lot of good stuff". Surely every fantasy has tried out Terry Brooks, even if those if us with taste give up very quickly.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 19, 2007)

amethal said:
			
		

> I've read The Book of Skulls. Its sci-fi.




I'd call it more contemprary horror/fantasy myself.



> _http://www.sfsite.com/04b/bs79.htm
> 
> I've also read the Majipoor series. Classified them as sci-fi personally, but anyway since I've read a couple of dozen of Robert Silverberg's books I think we could probably give me a Yes on Silverberg._




The Majipoor books are a blend of science fiction and fantasy - that is one of the things that makes them good.



> _Ray Bradbury
> http://www.sfsite.com/03a/sw219.htm_




I've read a bunch of Bradbury, just not any that I would consider really in the "fantasy" category.



> _Rudyard Kipling
> http://www.sfsite.com/grx/orion/mklg.jpg
> 
> Sheri S Tepper
> http://www.sfsite.com/07b/be108.htm_




I'll take a look at these some time once I get through my current (very large) pile.



> _Thanks for a useful reply to my fairly snarky post. I'll check out the books you recommend._




Glad to be of service.



> _Have you read Weis and Hickman's Death Gate Cycle? I liked it._




No, their Dragonlance books were enough to put me off them.



> _Have you read Lion of Macedon? It made my 5 all time favourites list on another thread, so there's certainly no "but" after "Gemmell is good"._




I haven't gotten to that, I'll check it out.



> _Magician also made it to my all time list. If you've read it and don't rate Raymond E. Feist as tier one, then I guess we have to agree to disagree._




I read _Faerie Tale_ and _Shadow of a Dark Queen_. I might be able to squeeze _Magician_ in sometime later this year.



> _Have you read Bernard Cornwell's Arthurian novels, starting with The Winter King? They ain't historical._




Yes I have, and to tell the truth, they are. There isn't any magic, at least none that cannot be explained as coincidence. There aren't any fantasy elements other than the fact that they use swords and wear armor, and that isn't really a fantasy element in a book set in the 6th-7th century. The thing that made the Winter King series so good was that they were a possible "actual" version of Arthur.



> _I mentioned Brooks and Salvatore for a reason. How do you know they are derivative? Have you read them?_




The _Shanarra_ books are the second most derivative of Tolkien series I have read (Dennis McKiernan's _Iron Crown_ trilogy is first). Salvatore's books (at least the one's I have read) are entirely derivative of Forgotten Realms stuff (which makes sense, since they are based there, but that still makes them derivative).


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 19, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I read _Faerie Tale_ and _Shadow of a Dark Queen_. I might be able to squeeze _Magician_ in sometime later this year.




Feist's one attempt at modern fantasy wasn't his best, and unfortunately for you, _Shadow of the Dark Queen_ came after he turned into a total hack and started to re-write the same story he already wrote once for easy money...

_Magician_, on the other hand, is a good book - so are _Silverthorn_ and _A Darkness at Sethanon_. Much, much better than either of the two you've read. Don't know if sufficiently so to elevate them to "tier one", but really, the difference in overall quality is huge.


----------



## jonesy (Jun 19, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> ...I have had people tell me "oh, but this series is _really good_", so I went through a phase where I would take them up on their recommendations and try them. I was pretty much universally disappointed.



Oh hey maybe you should try [this really great book series] or [I think you might like this book by that author you hate a lot more than the others].  

Seriously though, I always enjoy talking to people with different opinions. If we all liked the same things life would terribly boring.

"Have you read that book?"
"Yeah."
"Great, huh?"
"Yup."
"Did you like so and so?"
"Sure."
"Nothing to complain about?"
"Nope."
"...so, see any good movies lately?"
"They're all good."
"..."


----------



## Einan (Jun 19, 2007)

The Dragonlance original chronicles are more fun, in my opinion, if one reads them as less a novel and more a storyhour.  It's kind of fun to pick out the places where the players rolled really badly.  

And they're worth the read, if only to see if you do like them or not.  I've never read anything so terrible (fantasy-wise) that not reading it would have made me a better person.  

And after all, most fantasy is candy anyway:  a pleasant way to pass some time, if not  quite to everyone's taste.

Einan


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 19, 2007)

Einan said:
			
		

> And after all, most fantasy is candy anyway:  a pleasant way to pass some time, if not  quite to everyone's taste.



Well, that's aiming pretty low. Accepting crap because crap is most of what's out there is a good way to keep crap coming, because that's what everyone is buying.

Genre fiction/TV/movies only got better when people say "you know, I'd like to see a sci-fi TV show that doesn't have sets that wobble and stories written for submoronic children." Compare the new BSG series to the old for an example of what happens when the audience says "OK, we're not kids any more, give us something more substantial."

There's a TON of great fantasy literature out there that's vastly more than candy. Some of it has even been mentioned on this thread. There's also a thread on the first page here where people are recommending five (and only five) fantasy books. Very little of those recommendations are candy, much of it is steak.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 19, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Compare the new BSG series to the old for an example of what happens when the audience says "OK, we're not kids any more, give us something more substantial."



That's not a helpful comparison, though. The original BSG is a children's show, the new one isn't. Apples and oranges.  It's not just a difference in quality, the two incarnations of BSG have completely different goals (and target audiences).



> There's a TON of great fantasy literature out there that's vastly more than candy.



Yes, but sometimes people want candy. Most of the time, really. When they don't there's always Angela Carter. 



> Very little of those recommendations are candy, much of it is steak.



I'd say much of it is _better candy_. Which is fine.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 19, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> ...for the same reason I left Samuel R. Delany off - his work is too weird in some ways to be considered a must.



Delany's too weird to be considered essential _fantasy_? That's a bold, and kind of daft, statement. Do you mean that his writing is too inaccessible? I won't argue that, except to say that I don't find Delany's writing any less accessible than, say, Gene Wolfe's.

Samuel R. Delany is one of my favorite authors, but, trying to bring this back around to Dragonlance, he's like the anti-Weiss and Hickman. Delany can craft some lovely sentences. Lots of them, in fact. So many that his novels can sound like novel-length prose poems. So if you love language, give him a try. But if you're looking for a rip-roaring yarn and characters that'll charm/make you shed a tear, stay the hell away from his books.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 19, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Delany's too weird to be considered essential _fantasy_? That's a bold, and kind of daft, statement. Do you mean that his writing is too inaccessible? I won't argue that, except to say that I don't find Delany's writing any less accessible than, say, Gene Wolfe's.




His stories tend to be a little off the standard (and I mean that in a good way). His writing itself is excellent, but his stories are often so obscure that they can't be considered essential - I'm thinking of the Neveryon books here. His science fiction stuff is its own brand of odd (_Dhalgren_, I'm looking at you). I agree - I love reading Delany, but his writing style is so experimental, his stories are so unusual, and so much of his material is wrapped up in sexual politics, that I just cannot consider his fantasy books as "musts".


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 19, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> That's not a helpful comparison, though. The original BSG is a children's show, the new one isn't. Apples and oranges.  It's not just a difference in quality, the two incarnations of BSG have completely different goals (and target audiences).



The original was standard 1970s sci-fi TV fare. Space 1999 was only more adult because it was so freaking boring.

The difference isn't the intended audience, the difference is the ambition involved.



> Yes, but sometimes people want candy. Most of the time, really. When they don't there's always Angela Carter.



And that's fine. But plenty of readers claim there's only junk food out there, and there's no point in complaining about it. If anyone wonders why so much fantasy is crap, it's because people keep buying it, and for years, didn't even question the notion that it could never be any more.



> I'd say much of it is _better candy_. Which is fine.



I'm not arguing that you're not allowed to eat at McDonald's every meal for the rest of your life, so there's no need to defend that choice.

Read all the crap you like.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 20, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> The original was standard 1970s sci-fi TV fare. Space 1999 was only more adult because it was so freaking boring.
> 
> The difference isn't the intended audience, the difference is the ambition involved.
> 
> ...




What I find rather interesting when people feel the need to knock TOSBSG they seem to forget that for a show that only lasted one year (Galactica 1980 does not count) and is 28 years old it had a dedicated fanbase who bought the novels and all the comic tie ins.  And signed petion after petion to get  it back on the air. Sure compared to today's shows it is not quite as sophisticated and it suffered from the way TV was made. 

The show was never supposed to be a series it was supposed to be a series of TV miniseries or films because the first movie did so well it was rushed into production and the quality went down.

And when it first aired it was amazing for its time it had some of the best special effects ever seen on TV at that time.

But I still enjoy the mythology of the show the battle between good and evil the entire idea of ancient astronauts and the tie ins with ancient cultures. As a 19 year old watching the show for the first time it inspired me to look into those ancient cultures.

I also liked the idea of good guys being heroes and trying to do the right thing and not being drunks and wanting to commit adultery all the so called adult themes of the new show. 

I find the old show to be refreshing it may not be a realistic as the new show but sometimes escapism is what is needed.

I like the Dragonlance novels and don't think they are crap. I enjoy the characters and the world. No I don't think it is great literature but it is a fun read at least I found it so. I read about four books a week some are real meaty satisfying works that I would classify as great literature and others are what I call mindcandy they are light fluffy reads that don't require a lot of thought and are pure escapism. They are fun reads. 

Right now I am reading some of the Stargate books by Fandemonium I am enjoying them they are like sitting down and watching an episode. And they are perfect reads right now. I just moved into a new place so I have been busy packing and unpacking I am also going through a health issuse right now and am having tests and these lite books are just what I need they don't require a lot from me they help keep my mind busy while waiting at the doctor's office or when I am taking a break from unpacking.

Its just like I am grabbing fast food right now becasue I am busy and it is easier sure I don't want to live on it but I am glad it is there when I need a quick bite to eat.

And your last line about reading crap comes across as arrogant and condescending. A lot of people may choose to read the more fluffy fantasy because it fits into their lives. I don't read romance novels but I have read articles on the kind of woman who do most of them have a college education, a career and a family and they read them because they are simple easy and fast reads and they can squeeze them into the few moments of their busy hetic days. Because the plots are simple there is not a lot to remember and so it is easier to pick back up a week later. You make it sound like these people who read what you consider to be crap to be responsible for the fact that not all books being published are fantastic works destined to be classics.



Every genre has some great, average and bad works in it. Fantasy has really come into its own in the last 20 years and that is why you are now seeing some great works because you have more writers writing it. If you look at the early pulp stories of SF of the 30s,40s and 50s most of those by today standards are badly written. But the fans ate it up it appealed to them and as their tastes matured so did science fiction.  I think we are seeing the same in fantasy.


----------

