# Novel series that you can't stand.



## Dark Jezter (Jun 20, 2003)

Okay, this thread is the opposite of the "Your favorite novel series" thread.  The purpose of this one is for readers to vent:  What novel series do you hate, but everybody else seems to love?

For me, I'd say _Wheel of Time_ by Robert Jordan.  Good grief, someone had better tell Robert Jordan that sometimes less is more.  I'm all for verbose descriptions and deep characters, but these books take it to the extreme;  Jordan will write whole strings of chapters where absolutely nothing of import happens, just long, rambling descriptions.  I'm a fast reader, and can usually read a 1000-page book in three or four days, but it took me a month to read _The Eye of the World._

And speaking of the characters, I can't really think of any I care about.  Rand is a reluctant hero to a degree of extreme annoyance, and it's hard to like a character who spends all his time whining about how he dosen't want to be a hero.  And then there are the women in the books... generally unpleasent folk who spend all their time sniffing and turning up their noses at each other.  The only character I liked was Mat.

Okay, now that's off my chest... I'll let other people get to their most hated novels.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 20, 2003)

When I find something I don't like, I generally stop reading it.  I couldn't get more than 2 pages into Dragons of Autumn Twilight, for instance.  I guess for a series, it would have to be RE Salvatore's Forgotten Realms novels, which started well with The Crystal Shard (I think it was written before the TSR ethics code came in, so it has some mild nastiness in it) then went progressively down hill.  I still read a whole bunch of them (up to, I think, The Legacy) before I gave up.

I haven't yet penetrated Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun (New Sun is great), but I'll try again one of these days.

CJ Cherryh's Chronicles of Morgaine - great characterisation and atmosphere, but almost nothing ever happens.  I had the sexist thought that maybe this was a standard fault of female writers, but then I reread LeGuin's 'The Furthest Shore' again, and was blown away (again)...


----------



## KenM (Jun 20, 2003)

TSR having a "code of ethics", now thats funny.  But I know I will get flamed for this, but the book series I can't stand is Lord of the Rings. I love the movies, but the books are just so long, drawn out. JRRT had no idea how to do plot devlopment or how to prgress the story. He describes the characters going around EVERY hill, road, ect.. Then for some reason that has no relation to the main plot, the characters sing for many pages, to show the language(s) He devolped. Also, some major plot things that should have been explained more, are not(IE, between FoTR and TTT the orcs attack, no place does JRRT describe the action, its just mentioned in passing the the orcs attacked the, that is a MAJOR plot happening). Someone else said "you read LOTR to find out about the world, the languages, the story is the backround".  I felt like I was reading a textbook, if I want to read a textbook to learn, I will read a textbook to learn, if I want to read a fantasy adventure novel, thats what I expect, not a textbook.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Jun 20, 2003)

For the record: I just hate the Belgariad or whatever that novel series was called. Such a waste to feature a great character like Polgara in such utter meaningless tripe.


----------



## Saba Taru (Jun 20, 2003)

*Hrm...*



			
				KenM said:
			
		

> *JRRT had no idea how to do plot devlopment or how to prgress the story. He describes the characters going around EVERY hill, road, ect.. Then for some reason that has no relation to the main plot, the characters sing for many pages, to show the language(s) He devolped. Also, so major plot things that should have been explained more, are not(IE, between FoTR and TTT the orcs attack, no place does JRRT describe the action, its just mentioned in passing the the orcs attacked the, that is a MAJOR plot happening). Someone else said "you read LOTR to find out about the world, the languages, the story is the backround".  I felt like I was reading a textbook, if I want to read a textbook to learn, I will read a textbook to learn, if I want to read a fantasy adventure novel, thats what I expect, not a textbook. *




I used to feel the same way about those books.  After college (the first time) and during a medieval lit class (for yet another degree), I finally pieced together exactly what JRRT was trying to accomplish and what he'd modeled his work on.  I have to give him credit for that stroke of genius (even while acknowledging the fact that his books are difficult to read for "modern" audiences and seem to go nowhere in a hurry), and I'd highly recommend that even if you find the books distasteful, that you take a look at the literature it was based on.  You might find a hidden appreciation for his accomplishment even if the stories themselves hold no value for you.  

Back on topic, Robert Jordan's stuff annoyed the crap out of me.  I read the first book and part of the second (at the insistance of my husband who loved the series) before I finally gave up.  I'm also loathe to even look at the Redwall books, and the Xanth series after about book 12 got to be too much, and the iconic D&D novels (don't get me started on that one...).  So many serial novels start out so well and then just die, but I'm not bitter...


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jun 20, 2003)

Asimov's _Foundation_ books bore the snot out of me.  I also haven't been able to complete the second book of Song of Ice and Fire.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Jun 20, 2003)

Add my vote to Robert Jordan's _Wheel of Time_. I've tried to read the first book 4 times, but can't get beyond 300 pages. Nothing really ever happens, but everything is described to the smallest detail, and the dialogue is AWFUL. I've got friends who rave about the series, about the story, the world, but all I can see is alot of description about whining characters who mean absolutly nothing to me. And occasionally a female character who is written like a man but is described as "she", so you know its a woman. Sorry, but I just don't get them. But to give credit, Tor Books has done a fantastic job of marketing the books (have to say that, my fiance used to work in Tor's marketing department, and I saw the amount of work that went into it  ).


(edit spelling)


----------



## buzzard (Jun 20, 2003)

It's almost too easy to bash Jordan, but I'll still echo the thought that even moreso than Dickens this man feels like he's being paid by the word.

Other series of dreck... well I generally don't make it through a whole series if the first one sucks. However I guess the Metapsychic rebellion series by Julian May would have to be a big dissapointment to me. The Pleistocene Exile was a spectacular series. Those books are so good I re-read them every year. Then she went on to write was was essentially the prequel. The first ones detailing contact with the psychic aliens were OK, but then she got to writing the meat of what was to be the set of the rebellion. These came in three books. Jack the Bodyless, Diamond Mask, and Magnificat. The first two were OK. Things moved along, and the created world was pretty cool. Then she wrote the last one. Since we all knew there was to be a big war based on human psychics wanting to break with galactic civilization, you'd figure it would have to be a heck for a war. Feh. It was a pathetic excuse for a war. Casualties were caused by accident. The bad guys were defeated by some stupid jiggery-pokery. The whole description in the book was less than 50 pages(less than that probably, but I won't be re-reading it). 

After reading bits and pieces about the rebellion during the first series, you come in with great expectations about the scale of the war. She ends up writing it as a tempest in a teapot. 

I highly reccomend her original series. Just leave it at that. 

buzzard


----------



## KenM (Jun 20, 2003)

Alot of people not liking Jordan's Wheel of Time. Think He might get the hint and finish the thing? I', glad I never could get into that series.


----------



## Arken (Jun 20, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> *Alot of people not liking Jordan's Wheel of Time. Think He might get the hint and finish the thing? I', glad I never could get into that series. *




LOL will never happen! Remember:




> 'The wheel of time turns, ages come and pass..._blah, blah, blah_...There are neither beginnings *nor endings* to the turning of The Wheel of Time.'




It's like a threat! and every one of them starts like that!

Though I read them (I started so i'll finish) add my vote to the 'anti Wheel of Time' list. They're just not that well written and we're agreed on the characterisation particularly for the women going around raising their eyebrows and making shew-like comments at all and sundry.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 20, 2003)

*Dragonlance*. I read them, liked Raistlin and Caramon {sp?}. Then formulated my theory about how good characters can shine throught the utter, miasmic darkness of god-awful writing...

*Xanth* Though I liked the first three Apprentice Adept books, and what I read of the Incarnations of Immortality.

*Thoman Covenant* Of course, I love them in equal measure...  

That's about it for the Big Series. But what do I know, I like Eddings. He wrote 10 or 20 of the most enjoyable and essentially identical fantasy novels I've ever read.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Jun 20, 2003)

*Shadow Moon*

I absolutely hated _Shadow Moon_ by Chris Claremont (of X-men fame) and George Lucas (that Star Wars guy  ). It's the "sequel" to _Willow_.  It manages to destroy all the charm and fantasy of the movie. It re-creates the Willow character as some sort of lone-wolf uber-mage and takes him to a completely different part of the world that is nothing like the setting for the movie (it has a character who has invented the steam engine and is trying to get the kingdom to implement a railroad system!). Further, Madmartigan and Sortia (sp?) are killed off in the first chapter and Nockmaar is only a passing reference. Combine this with Claremont's irritatingly verbose writing style and it was the most painful read of my life (yes, I forced myself to finish it). There's one more book in the series called _Shadow Dawn_ but I refuse to pick it up. I could go on about the supporting cast of characters being awful and 2-dimensional (including a grown up and annoying Elora Dannan), but I think I've rambled on long enough.


----------



## orbitalfreak (Jun 20, 2003)

Throw on another vote for not liking Tolkein.  I've tried reading LotR three times now, and never made it past Tom Bombadil.  I've tried The Hobbit twice, and found that it sounded childish to me.


----------



## Black Omega (Jun 20, 2003)

The Second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant.  Easily.  Dark, depressing and with very little to redeem it.  Even worse than the first series.  Which is a shame, the world is very cool.  Take TC out of the books and put in someone interesting a reader could empathize with a little and it could be a great series.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jun 20, 2003)

Y'all are reminding me of why I want to re-read the Thomas Covenant books, Jordan (2 of the books annoy me, the rest I found really interesting), and as many Xanth books as I can get my hands on.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 20, 2003)

The Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind, starting with Wizard's First Rule. I mostly enjoyed the first book, with the exception of the overly-long sado-massochism subplot (my thought at the time? "The author _really_ needs to date more.)  

Then I started reading the second book, _and suddenly the characters had all gotten incredibly stupid again._ It was like all the revelations and character development that had happened in the end of the first book had never occurred, and we were cursed once again with whining, self-doubting protagonists who just needed to talk to one another. Feh.


----------



## KenM (Jun 20, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *The Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind, starting with Wizard's First Rule. I mostly enjoyed the first book, with the exception of the overly-long sado-massochism subplot (my thought at the time? "The author really needs to date more.)
> 
> Then I started reading the second book, and suddenly the characters had all gotten incredibly stupid again. It was like all the revelations and character development that had happened in the end of the first book had never occurred, and we were cursed once again with whining, self-doubting protagonists who just needed to talk to one another. Feh. *






 I'm glad I only read first book then.


----------



## zyzzyr (Jun 20, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'm glad I only read first book then. *




I couldn't make it past the first book.  The only book I've ever put down and refused to finish.

I spent $3 on it, and feel cheated.  It was, without a doubt, the single worst thing I have ever read.  

The characters were monumentally stupid, the writing was dreck, and there was so little original in the book I was beginning to think it was supposed to be a parody.

Oh, and Jordan is terrible too.  Go with GRR Martin instead.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 20, 2003)

The Dragonlance novels pretty much set the standard for TSR novels. They weren't perfect, and were overly melodramatic in parts, but otherwise IMO a pretty good read. If you don't like these, chances are you won't like the other TSR/WotC shared world books either.

I like Salvatore, but I may be biased considering that I first read his FR books when I was in highschool, at a time when I could really appreciate the non-stop action. Today I still follow the books, although I am about 2 behind right now. People trash him all the time, yet somehow his books always make the bestseller lists. That means that the people who don't like him are a vocal minority, or people lie about not liking him and then buy his books anyway. I had the opportunity to meet him at a book signing a few years ago and he is the definition of a nice, unpretentious guy. I disagreed with him on some of his fundamental beliefs about fantasy books in general. He has the belief that the author shouldn't spend a lot of time building the world and should cut to the action. It works for him and the stroies he tells, but I certainly wouldn't denigrate Tad Williams for telling his stories the way he does.

I appreciate Tolkein and everything he has contributed to the fantasy genre, but I don't actually like to *read* Tolkien. Fortunately the movies make reading him unnecessary. 

I also can't stand Jordan. I read one of the Conan books he wrote and it actually wasn't bad, but trying to read WoT is like pulling teeth without anesthetic. 

With David Eddings I liked with the Belgariad, but things really went downhill from there. The Mallorian was a total waste of time, as were the Sparhawk books. I'm not even sure what he's released in the past few years.


----------



## Negative Zero (Jun 21, 2003)

i read the first of WoT couldn't bring myself to pick up another. too slow. plus the writer had an annoying tendancy to spend forever attaching you to a character and then killing htem off. not cool in my book.

Darth Shoju,
i'm really surprised coz, the Shadow Trilogy was/is one of my favourite books! in fact i was remarking to my sister over last weekend that i'm gonna re-read them soon. i understand why you were disappointed with Elora Dannan in the first book. i didn't like it either. it was very hard to justify any empathy for the focus of the entire plot of a beloved movie. she does get better in the subsequent books, tho if you hated the first that much, i doubt her alone will win you over.

PC,
funny you should bring that up. i'm reading Pliiars of Creation now. the 7th (i think) one in that series. i've been fairly disenchanted with the series tho. the first one was an impulse buy for me. and at the beginning i hated it. the writing seemed like it was done by a high school kid. i couldn't imagine how he got a book deal. but i figured, i'd spent the money, i might as well finish it. by midway, i was actually interested in seeing what happened to the characters. the subsequent books have only gotten worse tho. he tends to spend way too much time talking about unimportant characters that he kills off by the end of the books, or never brings up again. and he constantly repeats himself. and his character dialogue is so horribly primitive. and ... nevermind.

Sword of Truth. yeah that's the one i hate the most. i keep hoping for it to get good. but i keep being right that it's not. *sigh*

~NegZ


----------



## Claude Raines (Jun 21, 2003)

Hmmm, so many bad books.
Eddings series with Sparhawk were awful. Same as the Belgariad and Mallorean series. Exactly the same story with even more annoying characters.

Tailchaser's song by Tad Williams. Whenever I read a book that has been touted as "Watership Down for X animal species," I'm always in for a huge waste of time and money. (But I do love Watership Down.)

I hated Goodkind's Wizard's First Rule and have avoided all the other books.

The Witch World series bored me to death, but then I find I don't really enjoy most  fantasy where the protagonist comes from a normal earth to an alternate world.

And for another one that probably will surprise many people, I never really enjoyed Kurtz's Deryni series.


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Jun 21, 2003)

David Eddings: Belgarian, Mallorean, Elenium, Tamuli (the last two are the Sparrhawk trilogies).  I can't believe I read them all.  Years after they were published, so in about one month I read them all.  Then, eventually "Belgarath the Sorcerer" came out and I read that.  By then, I so hated the Belgariad/Mallorean series, I could not bring myself to read the book named after the greatest charater in the series: Polgara.  Wow.  Eleven bad books and I couldn't waste a weekend to read #12?  What was I thinking?



			
				Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> *For the record: I just hate the Belgariad or whatever that novel series was called. Such a waste to feature a great character like Polgara in such utter meaningless tripe. *



So, I'm with Frostmarrow on this one.



			
				Claude Raines said:
			
		

> *Hmmm, so many bad books.
> Eddings series with Sparhawk were awful. Same as the Belgariad and Mallorean series. Exactly the same story with even more annoying characters.*



And I am with Claude Raines, too.  And as for annoying characters--that conman/thief who spoke "in dialect" all the time.  Give it a rest!


But, for complete crapitude, so bad I couldn't even finish it, the award goes to Stephen Donaldson's "Thomas Covenant" series.  Now I must confess, if I read more than 50 pages of a book, I finish it.  No matter how bad (see list of Eddings I have read, at the top of this post).  But that first Thomas Covenent book--my god, I read 250 pages (more than half!) and then could not finish it.

Special Honorable Mention time.  For the stealth crapitude award, Terry Brooks' "Shannara" series. I read the first one.  I read the second one.  I read the third one.  All was good, but I had no desire to read further.  Then I read "Lord of the Rings."  Admittedly, the book was spoiled a bit, for I had already read it--in "Sword of Shannara"--a rip-off so extreme, I can only call it plagiarism.  Now, I'm not some Tolkien purist or fanboy, whole sections of his trilogy are god-awful boring.  But Shannara, well, having finally read the source material, I just can't call this a good series.  And that name--Allanon.  When I read/hear it, all I can think of is 
Al-Anon (a 12 step program for people with relatives/friends who are alcoholics).


----------



## Tewligan (Jun 21, 2003)

*The stink of Wizard's First Rule*



			
				zyzzyr said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I couldn't make it past the first book.  The only book I've ever put down and refused to finish.
> *



Same here.  A friend pushed it on me, gushing about how great it was.  I'd read a bit and think "Huh. I guess it'll get better..."  I repeated this a few times before realizing that it was not going to improve and gave up on it.  To make matters worse, I loaned her my copy of Moorcock's Hawkmoon series, and we never got around to returning the books to each other before she moved to California.  I traded a good book for crap!

Oh, and Pier's Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality quickly became unfinishable for me.  It's his dialogue - to me, his characters all sound like they've been practicing everything they're going to say for weeks beforehand.  Very awkward and unnatural-sounding.


----------



## Dagger75 (Jun 21, 2003)

*Lame spoiler in the Sword of Truth rant*

Robert Jordan is to easy to bash and his books to easy to hate, althought they are on my list.


 Dune -Holy cow I tried to read this garbage. I was barely able to sit through the movies

 Sword of Truth Books- I kinda like The Wizards First Rule but the S&M was lame and from what a freind of mine told me about the rest of them, they seem to have degenerated into Porno novel with demons and what not.  And to spoil the books for the rest of you the wizards first rule is People are Stupid, which explains why so many people got suckered into reading this.

 Harry freakin Potter books - Sweet lord I could not finish the first chapter of the first book.  Here is a sample of Harry Potter that I wrote.
  Arnoldo Frumblebuttle walked down Whitchty Way with Mrs Crumplediddle Tootifruitywhotty....  God that annoyed me.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jun 21, 2003)

Barendd Nobeard said:
			
		

> *Special Honorable Mention time.  For the stealth crapitude award, Terry Brooks' "Shannara" series. I read the first one.  I read the second one.  I read the third one.  All was good, but I had no desire to read further.  Then I read "Lord of the Rings."  Admittedly, the book was spoiled a bit, for I had already read it--in "Sword of Shannara"--a rip-off so extreme, I can only call it plagiarism.  Now, I'm not some Tolkien purist or fanboy, whole sections of his trilogy are god-awful boring.  But Shannara, well, having finally read the source material, I just can't call this a good series.  And that name--Allanon.  When I read/hear it, all I can think of is
> Al-Anon (a 12 step program for people with relatives/friends who are alcoholics). *




Based on what I've heard, Terry Brooks' publisher basically told him "Give me a Lord of the Rings clone that I can cash in on."  So it's hardly surprising that most people I've talked to consider the Shannara series a rip-off of LotR.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jun 21, 2003)

*Re: Lame spoiler in the Sword of Truth rant*



			
				Dagger75 said:
			
		

> *Robert Jordan is to easy to bash and his books to easy to hate, althought they are on my list.*



*

Too true.  I agree with many of your points and wich to subscribe to your newsletter.  But Jordan is an easy target nowadays...




			Dune -Holy cow I tried to read this garbage. I was barely able to sit through the movies
		
Click to expand...



No, no, no its Holy Bovine.   I liked Dune but could never read past the first book.  They get even weirder.




			Harry freakin Potter books - Sweet lord I could not finish the first chapter of the first book.  Here is a sample of Harry Potter that I wrote.
  Arnoldo Frumblebuttle walked down Whitchty Way with Mrs Crumplediddle Tootifruitywhotty....  God that annoyed me.
		
Click to expand...


*
  I tired to read the first book got about 80 pages in and thought - why am a I reading a children's book?(as in written only for children with nothing to appeal to adults -and I'm an adult to plays RPGs and video games!)  And a poorly written one at that.  Maybe the later ones get better (they certainly get longer - defiantley getting that Jordanesque look about them) I don't know and don't really care to.


So others on my 'personal hate list' would be;

Dragonlance novels.  All of them.  Yup, every single last craptacular one of them.

Anything Kevin J. Anderson has ever written.  This guy gives hacks a bad name.  I have had the misfortune to read 3 of his novels (hoping they would get better because I really like Star Wars and he was doing the Dark Apprentice series it came out just after Timothy Zahn's original SW books) not all of them SW (one was a Dune novel that I got free from a book club and ordered without knowing KJA was co-author - I paid way too much for it  ).  I simply cannot describe how indescribely bad a writter this guy is.  I noticed a few years ago he went back to writing the 'pre-teen' age Star Wars books - I fear for the young!


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 21, 2003)

Couldn't finish the first book of the _Witch World_ , though God knows I tried. Tried two or three times. Maybe it was the hideous deformed dwarf character or something, but I just never could find any reason to read about these people. 

Almost anything by CJ Cherryh. I'm trying to read her latest fantasy series but man, it's slow going. I've stalled twice now, not even half-way through the first book. I haven't been able to touch her science fiction.


----------



## Dimenhydrinate (Jun 21, 2003)

*Sorry But,*

I read the first book of the Black Company and just can't bring myself to read anymore of them. I don't really know why either. I just really wasn't impressed with it all that much.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 21, 2003)

Black Omega said:
			
		

> *The Second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant.  Easily.  Dark, depressing and with very little to redeem it.  Even worse than the first series.  Which is a shame, the world is very cool.  Take TC out of the books and put in someone interesting a reader could empathize with a little and it could be a great series. *




I love the Chronicles - both sets.  Dark & Depressing is fine with me.  They seem to inspire equal amounts of love and hate in readers.  I like the Covenant character, even.

Tolkien I can take or leave - I read through the series ok, it was ok.  Attempts to reread have always failed though. 

Worst book I've tried to read recently was a sword & sorcery from the '70s called The Black Lion, I believe it may have been self-published, the art was so bad.


----------



## Negative Zero (Jun 21, 2003)

while not really a series, per se, the Star Wars books written by Timothy Zhan (sp?) REALLY got on my nerves. it was his incessant use of "the other". he would continuously refer to character as "the other" over and over and over and over and over and over and o... you get the picture.

~NegZ


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 21, 2003)

*Re: Re: Lame spoiler in the Sword of Truth rant*



			
				Holy Bovine said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Anything Kevin J. Anderson has ever written.  This guy gives hacks a bad name.  I have had the misfortune to read 3 of his novels (hoping they would get better because I really like Star Wars and he was doing the Dark Apprentice series it came out just after Timothy Zahn's original SW books) not all of them SW (one was a Dune novel that I got free from a book club and ordered without knowing KJA was co-author - I paid way too much for it  ).  I simply cannot describe how indescribely bad a writter this guy is.  I noticed a few years ago he went back to writing the 'pre-teen' age Star Wars books - I fear for the young! *



FINALLY! Someone. I can't stand this man's writing. I like some of
his ideas behind his stories, most notably Darksaber (which is the
 only of his books I enjoyed on some level, for his spin of a cliche 
SW plot) but if he just could get somone else to write it.

And why he keeps gettin' jobs on licensed projects is beyond me.


----------



## Psychotic Dreamer (Jun 21, 2003)

The Anita Blake series by Laurell K. Hamilton.  Well thats not entirely true.  I love the first 4-5 books.  Basically they go from strong sexual contect to softcore porn and finally to hardcore, deviant porn.  I have not been able to finish the latest book.  *sigh*  Not to mention the whole her becoming more of a monster than the monsters in the book.  I also made the mistake of trying Hamilton's other new series (forget the name of the first book) and that was even more twisted and sick than the last few Blake books.


----------



## zug_zug (Jun 21, 2003)

My vote have to be the original Trilogy for Dragonlance. I know those books were commisioned by TSR and that the authors were new to writing but eck, Im unable to read em.

I also really dont get the Shannara series.

As a side note(hijack), to those dislking Tolkien. I would say give it a chance. I felt much the same way for alot of my life till about 5 years ago. And to be honest, Tolkien does ramble getting the story started.  Part of this is his style, and attempt to frame the world, but some of this was a result of his own indecision of a direction to take the story. From the beginning until the party reaches Rivendell is pretty slow. For a more learned discussion of this I refer you to Tom Shippey in _Author of the Century_

Anyway I now end my thread hijack.


----------



## Dr. Talos (Jun 21, 2003)

Oh where to begin

Jordan - WOT - When, oh when will this train wreck end?

Goodkind - First book was good, then he became a Jordan rip-off.

Eddings - 1. First book - Great 2. Second Book - Repeat Book 1.

Brooks - The anti fantasy.  But oh, my dwarves love the woods.

Dragonlance - Junk except for Chronicles and Legends.

Eric van Lustbader - Ring of Five Dragons, gutwrenching.

All for now.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jun 21, 2003)

I'm willing to chalk up my dislike of Tolkien to personal taste.  I've always been more of a plot 'n action man than a setting man.  I've always felt like over-describing the setting is just a dodge to cover plot holes, or a lack of plot as the case may be.  I can never get into Lovecraft either - his books are booooooooring.

Writers who work just the right mix of setting detail and plot for me are Neal Stephenson, Michael Moorcock, and (I don my flak jacket for this one) J.K. Rowling. 

On Harry Potter:  I agree with most people about the first book.  It was definitely written for 11 year olds, which I didn't really have a problem with, but I could see why one might.  But the next books are so absorbing and dark that I find them irresistible.  YMMV, of course.


----------



## Olive (Jun 22, 2003)

So:

Jack Vance's Dying earth books
Fritz Leiber's Lanhkmar books
The Black Company books
Harry Potter

I think that Gygax and I have different taste in fiction generally, although I do like Lovecraft. I'm starting to think that I hate 50s fantasy, other than LeGuin.


----------



## jdavis (Jun 22, 2003)

I've skipped a lot of these books, once I start a book I have to read the whole series no matter how bad it is, once I get started I have to know how it ends, so I try to be more picky about what I start these days (Like Jordan, who I was actually enjoyed up till Crossroads of Naptime). Digging Deep into the old box of Paperbacks I found a couple of real stinkers, I doubt that they can be considered series people like though, well one was sort of popular so I'll start with it.

The Iron Throne Trilogy by Dennis McKiernan. Talk about copying Tolkien, it was so blatantly derivative that it was just silly. As I was reading it I was wondering how he managed to keep from getting sued for plagerism. 

Sword and Circlet series by Carole Nelson Douglas. I really have nothing to say about it except it wasn't very good at all. 

Loremasters of Elundium series by Mike Jefferies. Has to be the absolute worst series of books I have ever read. They were so poorly written they gave me headaches. It was shear will power to get through them.  Makes my head hurt even thinking about them. They are out of print now and that's probably a good thing.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 22, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *The Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind, starting with Wizard's First Rule. I mostly enjoyed the first book, with the exception of the overly-long sado-massochism subplot (my thought at the time? "The author really needs to date more.)
> 
> Then I started reading the second book, and suddenly the characters had all gotten incredibly stupid again. It was like all the revelations and character development that had happened in the end of the first book had never occurred, and we were cursed once again with whining, self-doubting protagonists who just needed to talk to one another. Feh. *




Man, this is exactly what I thought.
The first book was JUST good enough for me to try the second.  It has been several years now, but I remeber them getting stuck in some magic/cursed desert. It draggggggggggggggged.  "Oh, we are lost, woe to us.  WAIT, we can go this way.  Nope.  Oh, we are lost, woe to us.  WAIT, we can go this way.  Nope.  Oh, we are lost, woe to us.  WAIT, we can go this way.  Nope.  Oh, we are lost, woe to us.  WAIT, we can go this way.  Nope.  Oh, we are lost, woe to us.  WAIT, we can go this way.  Nope."

(I did not get that far into wheel of time)


----------



## BryonD (Jun 22, 2003)

Psychotic Dreamer said:
			
		

> *The Anita Blake series by Laurell K. Hamilton.  Well thats not entirely true.  I love the first 4-5 books.  Basically they go from strong sexual contect to softcore porn and finally to hardcore, deviant porn.  I have not been able to finish the latest book.  *sigh*  Not to mention the whole her becoming more of a monster than the monsters in the book.  I also made the mistake of trying Hamilton's other new series (forget the name of the first book) and that was even more twisted and sick than the last few Blake books. *




I loved the first nine (up through Obsidian Butterfly, which may have been the best).  Then CRASH AND BURN.  Not only was Narcissus in Chains porn not plot, I would not recommend it to somebody looking for porn.  I was convinced that Cerulean Sins was better, so I tried it.  It is better.  A very little bit better.  Not finishing it either.

But still, a strong 9 book run can't be a series I don't like.  It is just a series that ended before it was put down mercifully.  (Kinda like Wild Cards, great for 9 to 10 books, then trash)

The Kiss of Shadows stuff seems to show that Hamilton does not plan to go back to writing plot driven stuff any time soon.


----------



## Welverin (Jun 22, 2003)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *I'm willing to chalk up my dislike of Tolkien to personal taste. >snip<
> 
> Writers who work just the right mix of setting detail and plot for me are >snip<, Michael Moorcock, >snip<. *




Funny you should mention those two.

I've liked all of the Middle-Earth books I've read. When I first asked my brother if I could borrow the Silmarillion he warned me I might not like it, which wasn't the case at all.

He's the one who suggest that I read the Elric books, which left me wondering why people think they're good.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 22, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Funny you should mention those two.
> 
> ...




Tolkien's protagonists are like children, whereas Elric is an adolescent character.  Infantile fantasy vs adolescent fantasy.  Hence they appeal to different demographics.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Jun 22, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *The Iron Throne Trilogy by Dennis McKiernan. Talk about copying Tolkien, it was so blatantly derivative that it was just silly. As I was reading it I was wondering how he managed to keep from getting sued for plagerism.  *




If I'm not mistaken, he was threatened with a lawsuit from the Tolkien estate. He wrote the books after a long stay in the hospital, during which a friend gave him the LOTR to read. He sent his manuscript to the Tolkien estate as a fan work, and the characters were Hobbits in the original draft. They threatened him with a lawsuit, he changed the name from Hobbits to something else (I don't remember what they are called, I couldn't finish the first book), and sent it to several publishers, where it was accepted by one & published.


----------



## Orius (Jun 23, 2003)

I actually like Toliien and Jordan, though I found the last WoT book massively disappointing as well.

I can tolerate W&H's Dragonlance.

Eddings can write well, but he tends to fill his books with a lot of garbage that ruin an otherwise good story.  The Belgarion starts off well, but then goes downhill around the third book.  The Mallorean is little more than a re-rash of the Belgariad, and while it has its moments, ther's a lot of crap filling it up.  The Elenium I think is his best series, he puts in characters that are actually unique, and writes a fairly believable world, though he can't resist putting in scenes that are totally irrelevant.  The Tamuli had good moment,s but is loaded down with a lot of crap as well, but at least it's not a total rehash of the series that preceeded it.  Then there are the two books about Belgarath and Polgara.  They're good in terms of character development, especially the one about Polgara, I had disliked the character before reading that book.  However, he rehashes a lot of the backstory in Belgarath, and rehashes the rehasing in Polgara (about half of Polgara at least is a retelling of Belgarath from Polgara's POV).

A lot of game related fiction seems to be crap.  I've remember reading some horrible series set in Greyhawk, and a series in the Planescape setting that sucked so badly I couldn't finish it.

I didn't like Le Guin's _A Wizard of Earthsea_.  It was just kind of boring to me, and Le Guin picks terrible names.

The Shadow War trilogy.  I found this very disappointing.  I like Willow, but this series doesn't even resemble the movie at all.  The world is interesting, but the writing is terrible.  I think it sort of went against what I expected of the story, and I think it ruined my enjoyment of it.


----------



## jdavis (Jun 23, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Tolkien's protagonists are like children, whereas Elric is an adolescent character.  Infantile fantasy vs adolescent fantasy.  Hence they appeal to different demographics.   *




Tolkien ends with a very happy ending, Elric finds new levels of torment with each book, that has to be one of the darkest series of books I have ever read, talk about never getting a break in life. I also never really thought of Elric as a hero, LOTR was full of heroic characters and deeds.



			
				Cthulhu's Librarian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, he was threatened with a lawsuit from the Tolkien estate. He wrote the books after a long stay in the hospital, during which a friend gave him the LOTR to read. He sent his manuscript to the Tolkien estate as a fan work, and the characters were Hobbits in the original draft. They threatened him with a lawsuit, he changed the name from Hobbits to something else (I don't remember what they are called, I couldn't finish the first book), and sent it to several publishers, where it was accepted by one & published. *



 I heard his next books were better (set in the same world but not using a plagerized storyline). I read one of them and it was depressing, I have another one which I never started(that was 10 years ago). I can't remember who recommended the first trilogy to me but that's probably for the best.


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Jun 23, 2003)

Hated, or just annoyed by?

If I had to list a series that annoyed the heck out of me (but I still kept reading...), it would be Leo Frankowski's Misplaced Engineer series.

Now, bear in mind, I LOVE "what if" stories.  _Lest Darkness Fall_, _Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen_, and other books where one lone individual jumps back into the past and makes a difference.  So that aspect I find very good about Frankowski's series.

But c'mon!  Enough of the pedophilia!  Okay, we get it, barely-pubescent girls were fair game in the 13th century.  That's nice, now talk about something else.

Personally, after the sixth book, I don't think I'll read another of his books.

(Now, if the author of _The Architect of Sleep_ would just get off his duff and start editing the sequel--which, he admits on his webpage, is already written and sitting in a box next to his desk, but which unfortunately d-r-a-g-s  o-n  e-n-d-l-e-s-s-l-y --I would be very appreciative.)


----------



## S'mon (Jun 23, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Tolkien ends with a very happy ending, Elric finds new levels of torment with each book, that has to be one of the darkest series of books I have ever read, talk about never getting a break in life. I also never really thought of Elric as a hero, LOTR was full of heroic characters and deeds.
> *




Not sure about Tolkien's happy ending - the world is saved, yes, but Frodo is permanently scarred by his experiences, and never fully recovers, so there's a bit of sadness.  Elric is often described as an anti-hero, a protagonist lacking in traditional heroic qualities.


----------



## jdavis (Jun 23, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Not sure about Tolkien's happy ending - the world is saved, yes, but Frodo is permanently scarred by his experiences, and never fully recovers, so there's a bit of sadness.  Elric is often described as an anti-hero, a protagonist lacking in traditional heroic qualities. *



 I thought Elric actually destroyed the world. Frodo has nothing on Elric for angst and permanent scaring. Tolkien may of not had a perfect resolution but it was a happy ending, especially by comparison to Elric. I liked both stories but they are they are night and day different on pretty much every level.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 24, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> * I thought Elric actually destroyed the world. Frodo has nothing on Elric for angst and permanent scaring. Tolkien may of not had a perfect resolution but it was a happy ending, especially by comparison to Elric. I liked both stories but they are they are night and day different on pretty much every level. *




Elric didn't personally destroy the World, it was laid waste by the forces of Chaos, opposed by Elric who had allied with Law.  He did blow a horn that brought a new world into being AIR though, so that's something.  

In both Tolkien's LOTR and Stormbringer an old order passes away and is replaced by a new one.  Frodo doesn't get his soul sucked out, but it _was_ damaged by the Nazgul blade and the Ring.


----------



## Tyrion Alb (Jun 24, 2003)

Negative Zero said:
			
		

> *while not really a series, per se, the Star Wars books written by Timothy Zhan (sp?) REALLY got on my nerves. it was his incessant use of "the other". he would continuously refer to character as "the other" over and over and over and over and over and over and o... you get the picture.
> 
> ~NegZ *




Finally, someone who agrees.  I think that most people who enjoy Star Wars liked this when it came out just like a starving man would have loved a plain cracker.

Weirdo anti-Force creatures and caricatures of classic characters, IMO, ruined that series.

I'd agree with everyone on Jordan and especially that hack Goodkind.


----------



## TiQuinn (Jun 24, 2003)

Huh.  In making up this list, I've decided I must really hate fantasy fiction.  Oh, well.

The Lord of the Rings: I enjoyed The Hobbit, and feel that it is the closest Tolkien gets to storytelling.  The Lord of the Rings was in dire need of an editor who could've taught Tolkien something about pacing and story development.  I'll echo statements that say it read like a textbook, and leave it at that.

Dragonlance Chronicles:  Too many loose ends, too many characters, too many side stories, and no cohesive theme.

Fritz Leiber: Just couldn't get into his style of writing.  Leiber's "voice" just left me cold.

Dune: I've tried to read this five times, and I just can't get halfway through.

Haven't read Elric, or Wheel of Time, and I'm pretty afraid too now.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Jun 24, 2003)

Has anyone ever noticed that there is a lot more bad fantasy than bad SF around (and there's enough bad SF to make a neutron star)?

My personal guess is that, to write SF, you need if not actual ideas (which are only slightly more common in the genre than in general), at least the ability to confuse the reader into thinking you really do have an idea. 

To write fantasy (of the bad, pseudo-epic wandering variety, especially), you just need to be able to stick to the format. The closer you stay, the better (ie. worse).


Anyhoo, to the specifics:

Eddings: 
I liked Belgariad, and I liked Belgarath's "autobiography". Malloreon was tolerable, although a total rehash of the B (with built-in explanation for it; talk about brazening it out!), and the rest I have left untouched. Probably for the better of all.

Jordan:
Sixty trillion flies cannot be wrong, and so on. The first two or so were pretty readable, but afterwards... things just don't go anywhere, plus the main characters are dense as neutronium.

Just about all TSR / WotC novels:
Hack-writing for fans of the games. There are exceptions, of course (the original Dragonlance trilogy was fun, the Icewind Dale trilogy is quite readable, and I must be the only person on the planet who liked the Avatar trilogy), but life is too short for finding them.


----------



## Sixchan (Jun 24, 2003)

Harry Potter -- Just can't stand it.  Don't wizards realise how _stupid_ the word "muggle" sounds?  Seriously, who on Earth could ever come up with such stupid names in reality?  Oh, and magicians use wands.  _Wizards_ use _staffs_ (and they don't even need them anyway).  Like the movies though.

Lord of the Rings -- YAWN.  I've never managed to get Frodo to the council yet.  Again, like the movies.  The Hobbit is one of my favourites, though.

The Great War Trilogy -- For those who don't know, this is an Alternate History novel set during the Great war where the South won the ACW.  The prequel, How Few Remain, was another very good novel, but Turtledove's style just didn't work for me in the later books.  (OTOH in the World War series, where Aliens invade during World War II, his scene-changing style worked very well for me, but that was probably because the premise was more interesting).


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 24, 2003)

One of the worst?  Ironically, it's from an author who's work I generally like, but the Overman series from Lawrence Watt-Evans....well, lets just say it was his first series, how about that?

Goodkind's work started out OK, but by the second book, I was trying to figure out if it was a ripoff of Jordan, or an homage to porn movies. And, as PC, mentions, everyone gets stupid.  Worse, he uses the phrase "You are a rare man, Richard Cypher." somewhere on the odds of every fifth line of dialogue.  Yeesh.

And let's not forget the series I nearly burned in disgust, Thomas Covenant.  If I want to read about rapists, I'll pick up the daily paper, thankyouverymuch.  I've met enough real jerks in real life, thanks.  I mean, at least Elric _felt bad_ when he'd kill his friends and loved ones.

There are others.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 24, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *And let's not forget the series I nearly burned in disgust, Thomas Covenant.  If I want to read about rapists, I'll pick up the daily paper, thankyouverymuch.  I've met enough real jerks in real life, thanks.  I mean, at least Elric felt bad when he'd kill his friends and loved ones.*




Its been ages since I read them, but doesn't Covenant feel some remorse, once he actually starts to believe The Land is real? For a painfully long time TC thought he was in some sort of dream, or delusional state. 

 He was the Unbeliever after all...


----------



## Black Omega (Jun 25, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Its been ages since I read them, but doesn't Covenant feel some remorse, once he actually starts to believe The Land is real? For a painfully long time TC thought he was in some sort of dream, or delusional state.
> 
> He was the Unbeliever after all... *




A tiny bit of remorse, yes.  Given everything he did, it's not much.  A classic theme is what would some people do if they felt they could get away with anything without any consequences.  In Covenant's case, it's a free hand to be a mean spirited bastard.  Hannibal Lector is more of a hero.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 25, 2003)

Black Omega said:
			
		

> *A tiny bit of remorse, yes.  Given everything he did, it's not much.  A classic theme is what would some people do if they felt they could get away with anything without any consequences.  In Covenant's case, it's a free hand to be a mean spirited bastard.  Hannibal Lector is more of a hero. *




In Covenant's case, it is also "what people might do if they felt they were in a hallucination and experiencing physical sensation for the first time in years after having been robbed of that by leprosy."


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 25, 2003)

WoT by Jordan has gone down hill, first couple were good if old hat but after that crap for the most part.  What is bad about it is that I still pick them up expecting/hoping they get better. :

Trumps of Doom or whatever the additional Amber books by Zelazany were called.  There was no passion in them, and I think hurt the story as a whole. 

Every Drow novel!  While the Shard (3) books were good they were about an adventuring group, after that freaking drow this and that, players want to be one, two swords.   ARRRRRRRR!!!!!


----------



## Sonikal (Jun 26, 2003)

Harry smegging Potter... 

*DAMM Him and his evil ways!!!...*_If I get my hands on him I'm gonna..._

...(ahem), sorry... What I meant to say was I 'dislike' Harry Potter.


----------



## Ryan Koppenhaver (Jun 26, 2003)

Another vote for the Sword of Truth series, here.  I actually started reading in the middle of the series, with _Temple of the Winds_, which I thought was tolerable, but not great.

The next book in the series that I read was _Faith of the Fallen_.

Oh. My. God.  

I've read books with political messages before, and liked plenty of them, but _Faith of the Fallen_ simply redefines the word heavyhanded.  Goodkind makes Ayn  Rand look subtle and realistic.

  Ok, Ok, I get it already!  Communism is bad!  It makes people lazy and stupid!  But you can snap them out of it with some impressive statuary!

Sheesh.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 26, 2003)

That Middle Earth stuff Tolkien writes - Interesting setting but boy can that guy waffle on.

Anne McCaffrey's Dragon books - it takes you longer to figure out which is first in the series than actually read the book.

Frank Herbert's Dune series - he should have stopped after the first one.

Oh yeah and the Bible, good opening but then it really drags, and the final book is a pit too fantasical.


----------



## Olive (Jun 27, 2003)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> *Oh yeah and the Bible, good opening but then it really drags, and the final book is a pit too fantasical. *




Oh the comedy!

Pun of the week award goes to Bagpuss!!!


----------



## mojo1701 (Jun 27, 2003)

*Halo... goodbye!*

Have you read any of the Halo series?


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jun 27, 2003)

I've heard Elric described as almost the ideal anti-hero, in a fantasy context  Kind of the Anti-Conan.

Conan is physically powerful and fights black magic.  Elric is physically weak and fights with the aid of black magic.

Conan comes from a background of poverty and ruin, and wins a Kingdom.  Elric comes from a background of absolute wealth, and gives a Kingdom away.

Conan strives to save the world and his friends, Elric kills his friends, and ultimately destroys the world.

Plenty more "parrallels," if you dig deep.

Moorcock's prose can get away from him at times, though.  I remember reading that he wrote some ungodly amount of words per day, just pouring it out on the page.  Needs an editor sometimes.

If you like him, try *Warhound and the World's Pain*.  Especially if you like Dark Fantasy.  It's not an Elric book, it's set in the real world (mostly) around the eary renaissance.


----------



## Kesh (Jun 27, 2003)

I don't recall any full series I ever hated. Anything written by Dickens, though... *shudder*

_Dune_ rocks, but I haven't read beyond the first book. Saw the second series on Sci-Fi channel and was a bit lost. From what I hear, it gets weirder than that.

I've avoided Jordan's work, for precisely the reasons listed above. Too much bad press. 

I love Weis & Hickman's _Dragonlance_ novels, but detest the books by other authors. Got burned by too many of them.

Same with most _Star Wars_ books. I enjoyed the Zahn trilogy, but most other authors really screwed up the characters and/or setting badly. One exception was _The Truce At Bakura_, which was rather refreshing.

Oooh! _Star Trek_ novels! Now that's a breeding ground for bad prose! 

Occasionally, there's a good one. _Spock's World_, _Prime Directive_, and the return of the replicants (can't remember the title). Others are really really bad. We're talking "Spock as a pirate" level of bad. 

Wait, i do have one. Arthur C. Clarke's _Rama_ series. The first one was interesting. Second was okay. After that, he brought in a "co-author" and everything he's put out since has been crap. 

Though if Stephen King never finishes his _Dark Tower_ series, I'll be royally P.O.'ed.


----------



## Sonikal (Jun 27, 2003)

The worst novel in the world... 

*Pride and Prejudice*

I had to read it at school the once. I read the first sentance and I instinctively knew that it was going to be a big steaming pile of faeces... 


_...did I spell 'faeces' right?..._


----------



## mojo1701 (Jun 27, 2003)

Sonikal said:
			
		

> *...did I spell 'faeces' right?...  *




uh, no, it's _feces_. But you're right. It always seems that way. I think that the so-called "classics" are nothing but put-together babble by 'professors' with nothing better to do than bore students.

BTW, I've been reading the _Pianist_ (in Polish, too!). Although it's a good story, the author (there's even a little intro to the book done by his son) wasn't a professional writer; he just wrote his experiences. If I didn't know about that, I'd think it's a very boring book, but given the circumstances, it's a good book, but there are parts where he's just describing his days.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 27, 2003)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> *But you're right. It always seems that way. I think that the so-called "classics" are nothing but put-together babble by 'professors' with nothing better to do than bore students.*



Because the less you know about a subject, the more valid your opinion on it is 

[BTW, I don't like Austen at all. You just have to accept that a work can be good, a masterpiece even, and just not be to your tastes.]


----------



## KnowTheToe (Jun 27, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *
> Because the less you know about a subject, the more valid your opinion on it is
> 
> [BTW, I don't like Austen at all. You just have to accept that a work can be good, a masterpiece even, and just not be to your tastes.] *




Your logic has no place here you fiend!  If you are going to attack in such a vicious mannor maybe you should go somewhere else!  On the other hand you have a good point.  I want pizza.  I am going to go get pizza.  Good bye.


----------



## mojo1701 (Jun 27, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *
> Because the less you know about a subject, the more valid your opinion on it is
> 
> [BTW, I don't like Austen at all. You just have to accept that a work can be good, a masterpiece even, and just not be to your tastes.] *




Yeah, I guess. I wasn't bashing professors or great literature, or anything, and I'm still an immature 16-year-old kid; but I have read more than 60% of the students in his school have read. [_Note: I'm not boasting or anything, I'm just saying that anyone I've ever talked to doesn't read. "Oh, what are you reading for?" to which I reply "It's fun." "How can it be fun? You can't see anything that's going on." "That's the point. You have to use your imagination." "Imagi-what?"_]

_Edit: _KnowTheToe_ replied before I did: I just had pizza _


----------



## Mallus (Jun 27, 2003)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> *I wasn't bashing professors or great literature, or anything, and I'm still an immature 16-year-old kid; but I have read more than 60% of the students in his school have read.*



And I wasn't bashing you. I'm just a snarky guy twice you age who is bored at work on a Friday. 

You really nailed it, you know, the most import thing about reading is enjoying it. In the end it doesn't matter what you read. Currently, I'm putting off Moby Dick in favor of Phillip K. Dick and a stack of Alan Moore comics {Promethea and Top 10} I borrowed from a friend. 

Try Austen in a few years. Maybe you'll find something of value in her writing then {'course I never did...}. 

What do you like to read, BTW? At 16 I was all about Dune and Thomas Covenant...

[edit: Pizza... lovely pizza. And beer... lovely beer.... err, not that I'm suggesting you should grab a beer. There are laws against that...]


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jun 27, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *
> [BTW, I don't like Austen at all. You just have to accept that a work can be good, a masterpiece even, and just not be to your tastes.] *




just to sidenote, but I don't.  

Seriously, I gave up a long time ago accepting that someone else could tell me what good writing was and I just had to accept their judgement because they lived before me. I never had to read austen, so I'll make no specific comments there, but I've read pure dreck by so called masters, and I accept nothing as a masterpeice on other's say so...

That doesn't mean that I can't think something is well written, acted, whatever without liking it - I will readily give credit for a well done job even when the job was not to my taste - but people who try to tell me "this is good. read it and learn to think of it as good because thats what cultured people think" is looking for some serious mockery.  

On the topic at hand EVERY DAMN THING BY PEIRS ANTHONY!!!!!!!! Ugh! that man has enough idea for one and a half books and then he has to drag it into a 6 part series. The only one I read that ended even close to potential was Incarnations of Immortality - and by the time I finished those I was old enough to start realizing what a sexually screwed up puppy that guy is...  

Kahuna Burger


----------



## Mallus (Jun 27, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *That doesn't mean that I can't think something is well written, acted, whatever without liking it - I will readily give credit for a well done job even when the job was not to my taste - but people who try to tell me "this is good. read it and learn to think of it as good because thats what cultured people think" is looking for some serious mockery.  *



Sure, treating lit. as some kind of cultural capital/status symbol is nasty thing to do. "Do you like my new Lexus, and by the way I love the poetry of Ezra Pound"...

What I'm saying is that I readily accept that I miss things when I read/view/interact with art {to be fair, I miss things when I drive, light red lights}. I don't care for anyone to tell me I have to find value in a work, but I love to know what others find valuable, or more importantly the process by which they arrive at their aesthetic judgements.

Here's a question though: You give credit where its due, do you ever/often look back and change you mind? And if so, is it because of external influence? 

And Piers Anthony does, in fact, quite objectively bite. Except for the Apprentice Adept trilogy, which is clever and charming.


----------



## mojo1701 (Jun 27, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *
> And I wasn't bashing you. I'm just a snarky guy twice you age who is bored at work on a Friday. *




Thanks. I didn't mean that, though. 



> *What do you like to read, BTW? At 16 I was all about Dune and Thomas Covenant...*




Ehh... I'm still reading the _Pianist_, but I usually read _Star Wars_ novels, and any other Sci-Fi like that. Although I wanna finish the Pianist, I'm trying to borrow the books _Rebel Dream_ and _Rebel Stand_ books of the New Jedi Order series. I'm not saying I read a lot, and I don't visit my library often (their selection for books in series is terrible. For Example, I tried finding the Thrawn Trilogy books, but I only found #1 and #3. There's not a lot of NJO books there , but luckily I did buy the *New Jedi Order Sourcebook* for my SWRPG campaign) but I read more than most of my friends.



> *[edit: Pizza... lovely pizza. And beer... lovely beer.... err, not that I'm suggesting you should grab a beer. There are laws against that...] *




Hey, I'm Canadian. What's more Canadian than beer, _eh?_. Besides, Canada Day's comin' up in a few days. Nothin' more Canadian than a 2-4 (no, wait, now they have them in 2-8s) of Molson and fireworks?

_Edit: Smilie didn't work when i said the Library didn't have NJO books. I 'ed, but now I . _


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jun 27, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *
> Here's a question though: You give credit where its due, do you ever/often look back and change you mind? And if so, is it because of external influence?
> *





hrm... when I change my opinion about something its usually a lowering of that opinion... and yes, other people helping me put something I liked for shallow reasons in better perspective does sometimes effect that...

It is pretty rare that I just don't like something and start to after talking to someone about it...

Kahuna Burger


----------



## ASH (Jun 28, 2003)

I find that asking what one hates is silly because its all about personal perception. 
For instance my husband tryed to convince me that Pokeman is one of the best all time video games ever, and he has never played it.
So I am telling you all what I do like and what I do not like. And why I belive alot of you are wrong as hell.


That being said, The hobbit was written to be a story for the good ole professers kids. So if it sounds kind of childish, it is supposed to be.  The trilogy is hard to read but I have found it rewarding, not bad at all. Yes dry, but not like Sence and Sencability dry.

Harry Potter, especially the first few, are ment to be kids books. This is not something new. They have always been kids books. You can not judge it on an adult reading level, well you can but that is like being in a wrestling match with a 4 year old, its not fair.
 These books are just as sillly as the Chronicles of Narnia series, Also kids books.  Probably loved by many on these boards. Muggle is a silly word kids can read and understand easily. So dont fault it because its reading level is below yours, fault it because you dont like the story, which is hard to do honestly. They really are good books. Especailly if you look at book sales, and that is really what defines a book.  Especially in our world!

Let me just be one to say that although Jordan is long winded and is making his books drag out to the point to where even die hard fans are hating them, his books are not that bad.
Yes they are getting that way, but i would rather have him take a few more books to tye ever thing up than have them done in one crappy quick book.  I would just like him to do it already. By the time he is done my infant will be able to read them. Especially if he writes some prequils in between.

Let me just say that Wies and Hickman are wonderful writers, and ever Dragonlance novel they wrote toghther is much much better than any Forgotten Relms book written.  I have met them both, and find there books as much like DnD in written form as you could find.  
ANY Dragonlance novel that they did not write together pretty much blows goats.

I never read Dune, I may try one day! 

I hate Ann Rice books, I find the plots to be a bit to much for my liking.  I guess I am not much for Vampire stuff anyway. Or any thing Science fiction for that matter. Just not intersted.

Stephen King books can be dissapointing. But they are in a Cathulu nature that can also be creepy. I find his writing style jarring though. 

I LOVE George R R Martin. May I say that I have thrown his books and hated his characters much more than in any book ever. I have noticed that no one else has said anything bad about him so, I will assume he is liked by one and all.

I just also want to point out that Hacking is something that is done. It will always be done.  I cant think of a single thing in my life that has not been a reproduction of something else.  Even bugs bunny is a hacked concept. 
there is nothing wrong with reusing new ideas, if you can make them interesting and new in there own right, I will not fault an author for reusing a concept.  Just as I will not fault my self for likeing said, recycled concept.  
I will read just about anything and take some thing from it.  What I will not do is think any book below me. If I dont like a book I seldom blame the author, especailly if its a best seller. I blame my perception of the book, or my mind set when reading it.  Maybe I just an not so conceded to think that the author had my complete tastes in mind when writing it and if a single word is not up to my standards of writing excelence I will deem it un readable.

Let me just say that the Lord of the Rings trilogy has an amazing message behind it that could change your life.  Its really great work, both on a level of writting ability and story ability.  Very few authors, if any, can achieve the level of master that he acheived with that series. And that is a fact, he is the grandfather of Fantasy, this board would probably not be here if he did not write those books.  I give him the utmost respect!


----------



## mojo1701 (Jun 28, 2003)

ASH said:
			
		

> Harry Potter, especially the first few, are ment to be kids books. This is not something new. They have always been kids books. You can not judge it on an adult reading level, well you can but that is like being in a wrestling match with a 4 year old, its not fair.



The new ones aren't necessarily meant for children as much. The last few will probably be directed at teenagers, since the readers (and the characters) are growing up.



> These books are just as sillly as the Chronicles of Narnia series, Also kids books.



 However, I believe the Chronicles of Narnia were written as Christian allegory. 



> Muggle is a silly word kids can read and understand easily.



 I think it's an official word now, too.  In the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language.



> So dont fault it because its reading level is below yours, fault it because you dont like the story, which is hard to do honestly. They really are good books. Especailly if you look at book sales, and that is really what defines a book.  Especially in our world!



 It's not the reading level or anything like what you mentioned that bothers me. It's the marketing. They've made it almost as marketed as _Star Wars_. Coming from a movie I would expect, but not from a book. However, since it became so popular, I see why.



> I just also want to point out that Hacking is something that is done. It will always be done.  I cant think of a single thing in my life that has not been a reproduction of something else.  Even bugs bunny is a hacked concept.



 Where is it originally from? BTW, I don't remember the exact quote, but Roger Meyers Jr. on the Simpsons (creator of Itchy and Scratchy) said the same thing in the episode where he was being sued by that guy who said that he invented I&S. The speech where he included Chief Wiggum as an example.



> I will read just about anything and take some thing from it.




Hey, that was a quote used on my English Exam a few weeks ago! 



> What I will not do is think any book below me. If I dont like a book I seldom blame the author, especailly if its a best seller. I blame my perception of the book, or my mind set when reading it.  Maybe I just an not so conceded to think that the author had my complete tastes in mind when writing it and if a single word is not up to my standards of writing excelence I will deem it un readable.




Unless the person really is an idiot.



> Let me just say that the Lord of the Rings trilogy has an amazing message behind it that could change your life.  Its really great work, both on a level of writting ability and story ability.  Very few authors, if any, can achieve the level of master that he acheived with that series. And that is a fact, he is the grandfather of Fantasy, this board would probably not be here if he did not write those books.  I give him the utmost respect!




I think it's the fact that people would rather sit and watch the movie than read the book. I, myself, would recommend reading the book (novelizations of movies, too, since they pick up on things that the movie missed due to editing. 

SPOILER?

For example: In _Star Trek: Nemesis_, they missed the scene where they more or less explain Wesley Crusher being back during the wedding and tell you that his rank in Starfleet is now Lieutenant. Another missed scene is with Picard's new Number One at the end.)



> For instance my husband tryed to convince me that Pokeman is one of the best all time video games ever, and he has never played it.




Are we to either assume that he convinced you, or is it because your name is actually Ashley?


----------



## KenM (Jun 28, 2003)

ASH said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Let me just say that the Lord of the Rings trilogy has an amazing message behind it that could change your life.   *





  I have to ask, what is the message? That good will triumph over evil? That message is NOT in the LOTR books. In the end, the ring overtakes Frodo, and Gollum and Frodo fight over it. He did not throw the Ring into the fire, it fell in with Gollum. Frodo becomes evil because of the Ring at the end, its one evil overcoming another evil, not good over evil like many readers think.


----------



## nikolai (Jun 28, 2003)

Hi all,

I've posted a message asking for suggestions of fantasy books that won't scar me here:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54960 

Then I found this thread and thought I'd plug it...

My contribution to the debate is Raymond E. Fiest. I picked up _Magician_ largely because it was a fantasy novel in BBC's "Big Read" top 100 books. (Basically just a poll to find the UK's favourite books http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/bigread/top100.shtml). I've read 200 odd pages and it's dross. I can't stand the writing, and the plot's a complilation of trite fantasy cliches. Stay away from it.

As for Tolkien, I can see why people more into "sword-and-sorcery" won't be able to stand it. Large sections are really slow and what would be key events and battles in that sub-genre  Tolkien makes happen off-screen (In case anyone takes this the wrong way: this isn't a criticism, people's tastes aren't right or wrong). However, I like it because of the depth of the world, use of language and the way the plot strands are tied together. No other fantasy books come close to matching this. I also like the use of "evil" - such as the corupting power of the ring - and that the story is actually quite dark and sad. These are very different from a lot of other fantasy - even (especially?) stuff writen by professional Tolkien imitators.

nikolai.


----------



## LuYangShih (Jun 28, 2003)

Here is yet another vote for the Sword Of Truth series.  Very irritating, I stopped reading after the first novel, thankfully.  What is worse than that, though, is when a series starts off fabulously and draws you into buying several books after that first one, hoping it will equal the level of enjoyment you found in the first book.  For me, that was The Crystal Shard and the Drizzt books.  I still love The Crystal Shard, but all the other books were simply not worth it.


----------



## jdavis (Jun 28, 2003)

ASH said:
			
		

> *I find that asking what one hates is silly because its all about personal perception.
> For instance my husband tryed to convince me that Pokeman is one of the best all time video games ever, and he has never played it.
> *



 Must...Catch.....Them.....All....... and put them in a blender. 

I firmly hold by the books I added to this list being crap (they are out of print so apparently the general public agreed with me too) and I am fine with other people disliking other books, lets face it Tolkien isn't for everyone.


----------



## ASH (Jul 4, 2003)

> Are we to either assume that he convinced you, or is it because your name is actually Ashley?



My name is not Ashley. My initials before getting married spelled ASH and my husband used it as a cute nickname for me. And no he did not convince me, he orignially got the concept from a website.  



> I think it's an official word now, too. In the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language



I hate that popular usage could get a word in to a dictonary.



> Where is it originally from?



 Bugs Bunny in and of its self is not hacked. Its the character, the comic harleqin. Its from basic charcters that have been reproduce in time.  Starting as far back as written comic works.  I cant give any specific examples because I have heard this from teachers, but that was all that i remember.






> I have to ask, what is the message? That good will triumph over evil? That message is NOT in the LOTR books. In the end, the ring overtakes Frodo, and Gollum and Frodo fight over it. He did not throw the Ring into the fire, it fell in with Gollum. Frodo becomes evil because of the Ring at the end, its one evil overcoming another evil, not good over evil like many readers think.




Oh...So the fact that Sauron the Dark lord is vanquished has nothing to do with good.  I mean really, the book is mainly about Frodo, but the fact that he even gets to the fires of mount doom says alot for his charater. It was known that he could not do it himself, thats why Sam  and the others go with him. Frodo fails to stay himself from the evil.  But that does not mean that evil triumphed because the ring was still destroyed. The dark lord is gone and it ends up being a happy ending.  I did not say that was even the meaning. It could be one meaning, but not the only one. There are many ways to interpret the books another way might be, that the book has a meaning that everyone is weak, but if we look inside our selves we can accomplish wonderful things. I mean who is to say that Gollum is even truely evil, even he has two sides.  

My point still stands, every one likes everthing.  Or doesnt like it. Its all based on perception.  I mean people like Britney Spears, I think she may be the worst female pop singer alive, but just because I hate her does not mean she is.


----------



## KidCthulhu (Jul 8, 2003)

Mercedes Lackey and that ilk.  Any book featuring a young girl and a horse.  And I include anything by Anne McCaffrey except her first 6 books.  I gave up reading Fantasy and Sci Fi after just one too many "Oh, I am a beautiful maiden, but I lack self confidence, and the only one who understands me is my telepathically bonded horse/dragon/kitty cat/fluffy entity.  But wait, who is this handsome, emotionally stunted male authority figure or rogue. I wonder if his love will make me complete?"

Blaaaagh.  So much romantic claptrap on toast.  Give me a good mystery novel anyday (not that there isn't dreck in that genre as well).  I get better game ideas, and far less RenFaire Romance tm.


----------



## Rune (Jul 8, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> *TSR having a "code of ethics", now thats funny.  But I know I will get flamed for this, but the book series I can't stand is Lord of the Rings. I love the movies, but the books are just so long, drawn out. JRRT had no idea how to do plot devlopment or how to prgress the story. He describes the characters going around EVERY hill, road, ect.. Then for some reason that has no relation to the main plot, the characters sing for many pages, to show the language(s) He devolped. Also, some major plot things that should have been explained more, are not(IE, between FoTR and TTT the orcs attack, no place does JRRT describe the action, its just mentioned in passing the the orcs attacked the, that is a MAJOR plot happening). Someone else said "you read LOTR to find out about the world, the languages, the story is the backround".  I felt like I was reading a textbook, if I want to read a textbook to learn, I will read a textbook to learn, if I want to read a fantasy adventure novel, thats what I expect, not a textbook. *




Lord of the Rings wasn't a novel, it was a saga--in the old norse/icelandic tradition.  That's why a lot of people have trouble reading it--they're expecting a novel.

The author that I really think is over-rated is John Steinbeck.  I had a professor who called him "a very talented bad writer."  I think that sums it up very nicely.

He has a tendency to do very flat and unbelievable characters--which is okay, in some of his works, but works much more poorly in others.  _East of Eden_ is particularly bad in this area.

The one good thing about Steinbeck's stories, however, are the movies based on them. 

As for fantasy novels--let's just say that I don't like most fantasy novels at all.  A few good ones shine through, but most are pure drivel.


----------



## Rune (Jul 8, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> I have to ask, what is the message? That good will triumph over evil? That message is NOT in the LOTR books. In the end, the ring overtakes Frodo, and Gollum and Frodo fight over it. He did not throw the Ring into the fire, it fell in with Gollum. Frodo becomes evil because of the Ring at the end, its one evil overcoming another evil, not good over evil like many readers think. *




The message is _not_ that good will triumph over evil, it is that the good must be wary of the evil within themselves.

Also, for those bashing the classics because they bore you...

Generally enjoyment of the classics can usually be enhanced if you have someone knowledgeable to discuss them with.  You probably won't if you're still in high-school, although you might.

I know when I was in high school, I generally prefered generally pulpy (and I'm not talking about the pulp-genre, which I still like) fantasy and sci-fi novels that were high on action and low on quality over classics.  But I outgrew them.  That's okay.  Classics may, be easier to think of as "boring," if they lack a high action content, but I'll take a good quality slow novel over a low-quality "exciting" novel any day.


----------



## KenM (Jul 9, 2003)

Rune said:
			
		

> *Also, for those bashing the classics because they bore you...
> *





  I have read some classics that I really liked, Les Miserables, the complete uncut edtion I loved. Thats 1500 pages. I also read the Three Musketter's (SP?) I forget how long it was, but I thought it was very good. 
  Both Dumas and Hugo know how to advance the story, and keep it interesting, and not bog down the story with lots of usless details that have nothing to do with the plot or story, unlike JRRT's LoTR.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 9, 2003)

The Xanth novels, after the first few.  In fact, MOST Piers Anthony (Incarfnations of Immortality and first few Robot Adapt novels also an exception), that formula-addicted hack.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 9, 2003)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> *However, I believe the Chronicles of Narnia were written as Christian allegory.*




Nothing prevents a book from being aimed at children, _and_ Christian allegory. In the case of the Chronicles of Narnia, the books are both.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 9, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *Nothing prevents a book from being aimed at children, and Christian allegory. In the case of the Chronicles of Narnia, the books are both. *




True.  It's also true that being written to be accessible to younger readers is not mutually exclusive of being possbile to be enjoyed by older readers.  Harry Potter isn't "Make way for Ducklings" or "Arthur's Underwear Trouble", after all.


----------



## Look_a_Unicorn (Jul 10, 2003)

I think it was Ursula le Guin that wrote "Earthsea" series. Was given the series-in-one-book thing as a present and got through two chapters before realising if I tried to keep reading this my brain would wriggle out my earhole & beat my around the head till I stopped.
Not sure what it's linked to, but there is another book that's part of a series, the book is "Curse of the Mistwraith." I'd rather dunk my head into radioactive goop then attempt to wade through the drek that is this book again. Got about 200 pages through before the mind-numbing apathy that is this book overcame me.

I'll defend a few of the series mentioned here by saying:

*Dragonlance (the original "Dragons of XX" ones at least). A fantastic introduction to fantasy literature for someone aged 12. Don't know how I'd take them now though.

* WOT: Given first book aged 14 & loved it to bits. It was fantastic. I shed a tear for the whore the carcass has since become.

* Shannara: I couldn't stop reading any of these books. It wasn't because I liked the characters, or because I was engrossed in the storyline. I think it was more out of disbelief that an entire series could be written that had virtually no interesting events in it whatsoever.

* Thomas Covenant: Maybe the darkness of the setting appeals to many, I htought the world was actually pretty damn cool. But making the main character a sniveller that whinges & whines about the consequences of his own actions when everyone else had already forgiven him? I finished the series in the hopes SOMEONE would beat the living tar out of him. No such luck .

Did I say defend? Umm ok then
Lord of the Rings: First true fantasy series, an entire living breathing world of such breathtaking intricacy that your modern reader, not being grabbed in the first 30 minutes by graphic violence, seductive females or witty one-liners casts it to one side? I'm happy to keep this cherished series for those with the werewithal to thoroughly appreciate it.

And I realise that people will be thinking the same thing about many of the series I bagged out, I guess it all comes down to "where your at" at the time you pick a book up.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 10, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> *Here is yet another vote for the Sword Of Truth series.  Very irritating, I stopped reading after the first novel, thankfully.  What is worse than that, though, is when a series starts off fabulously and draws you into buying several books after that first one, hoping it will equal the level of enjoyment you found in the first book.  For me, that was The Crystal Shard and the Drizzt books.  I still love The Crystal Shard, but all the other books were simply not worth it. *




Hear hear on that - Salvatore got me buying lots of the sequels hoping they'd be good like Crystal Shard.  Eventually I cottoned on.


----------



## Inez Hull (Jul 12, 2003)

Likewise. I really enjoyed the Crystal Shard and have read it a number of times as a quick enjoyable dose of fantasy. However, the rest of those drow books were ludicrously bad. Man I thought it was bad when Arnie punched out the mule in one of those Conan movies, but one of those Salvatore books has the barbarian punch out a camel and then proceed to PICK IT UP AND THROW IT. Plus some rubbish fight scene with Drizzt where he hits an opponent 15 times before it even realises its dead or some crap like that. 

Also, another vote for Terry Goodkind. 

I agree with the comments earlier in the thread about Julian May's Galactic Millieu series. The Saga of the Exiles was pretty cool, but the "rebellion" in the later series was a complete non-event. Very disappointing. 


In defence of Ursula Le Guin and Michael Moorcock, I personally found the Earthsea books and Elric respectively, to be some of the weakest novels by either author. Ursula Le Guin's Haininsh sci-fi novels are fantastic and I much prefer Moorcock's novels that deal with alternate earths such as Von Bek or Bastable.


----------



## ergeheilalt (Jul 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by WizarDru _
> *And let's not forget the series I nearly burned in disgust, Thomas Covenant.  If I want to read about rapists, I'll pick up the daily paper, thankyouverymuch.  I've met enough real jerks in real life, thanks.  I mean, at least Elric felt bad when he'd kill his friends and loved ones.
> *




I felt the same way. I read the entire series hoping it would somehow get better, improve. I read these in eigth grade - you should have seen the face of my teacher when I described the "protaganist" (my mom got a phone call after class ). Putting aside the TC, the Land had great potential for a great novel. I was even more disappointed by the second series, talk about crazy.

I'm a big SOT fan, but the last book was a waste of paper. They stunk to high heaven - there was no involvement of the main characters until the *very* last chapter.

Erge


----------



## reddist (Jul 13, 2003)

*What about Gor?*

Three pages and I'm surprised nobody has mentioned John Norman and his Gor books.   I remember picking the first one up as a teenager, thinking "wow, there are 40 of these, they must be good.  This will keep me busy for years."

At first I thought it was a nicly thought-out universe, full of rich detail.  But then I realized reading those books will WARP YOUR MIND.  I have NEVER since come across books that are so full of misogyny and badly written soft-porn.  

Also... I liked Anthony's Apprentice Adept books for a long time.  I considered them some of my favorites for years, until I re-read them as an adult.  Consider the hero, someone who has trained his entire life playing in the "Games."  Whatever the situation, no matter how difficult or ludicrous, he has done it before while playing.  Anthony used this method to create a hero who essentially had his"god-mode" turned on. He was incapable of failing.

Other dislikes already mentioned: WoT, SoT, anything by Salvatore.

-Reddist


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Jul 13, 2003)

I did not like the Hobbit, although the trilogy is a different matter.

Not a series, but I can't stand Angels and Demons by Dan Brown.  I just posted a rather lengthy rant about that novel in this forum.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 13, 2003)

*Re: What about Gor?*



			
				reddist said:
			
		

> *Three pages and I'm surprised nobody has mentioned John Norman and his Gor books...
> 
> -Reddist *




Gor kinda 'goes without saying'... 
Interesting world, tedious misogyny, incredibly bad writing.


----------

