A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / Other Topics / Recommended Reading IV

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Sir Galahad
User ID: 0798784 Dec 30th 3:06 AM
Things seemed dead on the subject. Nothing posted since mid November!!!

Anyway, here are some books I liked or kind of liked with actual opinions and minor details.

Let me know what you think or email me at
[email protected]. Maybe we can talk things out

Sir Galahad
User ID: 0798784 Dec 30th 3:08 AM

Here's a breakdown of authors I've enjoyed, liked to some degree or found abhorrent. I've been reading them for about ten years and am a writer but take it for what it's worth since I have yet to complete any fantasy novels:

TOP CHOICES

THE VERY GOOD or BOLD & THE BEAUTIFUL IF YOU PREFER

(1) A GAME OF THRONES and A CLASH OF KINGS by George R.R. Martin: great scope with low fantasy elements but wonderful political intrigue between the noble families. This is THE BEST fantasy novel I have read in years. And if you don't believe me, it won the LOCUS award for one of the best books of this year.;
If you're a jaded fantasy reader, check this one out.

(2) AMBER SERIES by Roger Zelazney: I know this is kind of sci fi too, but I find it's mostly fantasy. The first five books only. Basically about godlike brothers who vie for the throne of Amber, use tarot cards of others for teleportation and create worlds of their own. I believe this won the Hugo and Nebula award, but I don't find it sci fi at all.
The later books that he wrote weren't nearly as good.
Worth a definite look. The first one is only about 200 pages (before fantasy novels expanded in size).;
Very atypical of standard fantasy novels with the typical young hero's epic journey. Corwin, the main character, is not only a bad ass but highly intelligent. Told in first person so you really get into his head.

(3) TOLKIEN: duh, I don't need to elaborate here. While he isn't my favorite author, he's one of the best even today. Check out THE HOBBIT and the LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY. Hopefully the movie series of the latter will be good which will expand the epic fantasy movie market; I just finished a long analysis on the HOBBIT and THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING for those who want more details. Email me below at my address if you want to chat about it.

(4) RIFTWAR SAGA: by Raymond E. Feist; the first four books only. Done very well but what the hell happened to the rest thereafter. I think that Feist either doesn't care and got put into a contract or had a ghost writer. Geesh.
If you enjoyed those, check out his FAERIE TALE book, too.
Emphasis on characterization and wonder and setting. Built on the Father of Fantasy but done very well.
DAUGHTER OF THE EMPIRE was probably as good or a notch down. The continuing books of the Riftwar Saga (I read two or three) were mediocre to ugly at best. What happened?

(5) SHANNARA SERIES: by Terry Brooks. I am only referring to the first three and THE FIRST KING OF SHANNARA. While some complain that he's overrated and steals elements from Tolkien, I don't see that too much. Most writers build on others and as long as it isn't blatant, its fine. Even Tolkien took many of his ideas from European Mythology of Old (Norse especially...the elves are adaptions of the Alfheim Elves).
His MAGIC KINGDOM for sale books (I read the first two) weren't quite as good and would go a notch down to GOOD books.
I would also point out that the guy is one of the most famous fantasy authors so there are a lot of people out there, who like him. Still, majority isn't always right so make up your own mind.
If you liked Tolkien and don't feel this guy is stealing from him, you'll probably like Brooks.

(6) THE LEGEND OF HUMA by Richard A. Knaak: probably one of the best writers for the Dragonlance Chronicles. This was a NY Times bestseller, which is very hard to do for fantasy novels, so that should give you an idea of how greatly woven it is. I would advise lovers of Arthurian literature to check this out.

(7) SANDMAN COMICS by Neil Gaiman. Not a novel but very well done and well loved. Check him out. Almost made into a movie and has sold more copies than Batman or Superman, I believe.
If you want something more classic, check out ELFQUEST comics.

(8) MOORCOCK BOOKS: by Michael Moorcock...the Eternal Champion series...done very well and set in his own dark and eerie setting. My top three series were Dorian Hawkmoon, Elric and Corum.
A bit dark in certain areas and not for those who like things hunky dorey. If you want that, try Brooks and Feist.

(9) FAFHRD AND GREY MOUSER SERIES by Fritz Leiber: great books from my general emotional impression. Haven't read them in over 10 yrs but they were short and exciting and to the point.
If you like the standard rogue stories and treasure hunting types, this might be up your alley.

Sir Galahad
User ID: 0798784 Dec 30th 3:09 AM

GOOD

(1) BELGARID SERIES: by David Eddings. Great characters and some cool rules and settings. A bit splotchy and hokey on the dialogue and the fact that none of the characters die permanently in the storyline.
Typical long adventure fantasy but if you don't mind the formula, then you should find it to be a great story.

(2) DRAGONLANCE CHRONICLES: by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman: some of the characters in this were great but others totally sucked and were caricatures or illogical. The whole storyline and History, which I think was developed by other people of the TSR gaming world, was astounding. While the authors did a pretty good job on SOME of the characters, the ideas for the elven princess and her brother were pretty pitiful. Others fell in between as mediocre or above average whereas Tannis and the Kender and Sturm were done pretty well. Notable secondary characters, too. Love stories were excellent to dismal.
I can't vouch for all the other authors since I haven't read the rest. Pay special attention to the authors since they change for some stories.
If you like Salvatore, you'll probably like the first three books, which set off a whole bunch of books thereafter.
However, even better was the TIME OF THE TWINS trilogy. I would advise people to skip the first three Dragon books, but you need to read them to know what's going on in this Twin trilogy. In the Twin Trilogy, the characters are done better and the structure and pacing are far better.

(3) JOHN CARTER OF MARS: by Edgar Rice Burroughs: eleven books in total; all about a what if of Mars being habitable by copper skinned people like us and evil green tall multiarmed martians.
This is very much memorative of pulp comics with lots of adventure. This was written in the 30s and 40s I believe.

(4) WIZARD'S FIRST RULE by Terry Goodkind: As long as the simplistic main character doesn't turn you off, this was a pretty good book dealing with issues of truth (although I feel he could have examined the ideas more so).
Didn't finish the second one b/c it was dragging. Lots of people love the guy and the publishers marketted it so much it became a best seller. Goodkind's first novel was considered soooo wonderful that he was offered $275,000 up front. Very atypical of first time fantasy authors so maybe worth a look.

(5) FIRST KNIGHT OF ALBION: the last knight of the Arthurian line wrestles with his fading knighthood and helps defend a town against barbarians. Some interesting ideas but the ideas aren't fully executed well....by Peter Hanratty

(6) MOST OF THE STEVEN BRUST NOVELS: if you like Zelazney, you'll probably like him, too. Both write like Hemingway. Consise and to the point with wit.
The JHEREG series were all pretty good but I was disappointed with ORCA (about the sixth or 7th book) and stopped halfway through.
BROKEDOWN PALACE and TO REIGN IN HELL were fairly good.
The latter especially since it gave one the POV of the demons of Hell before the Battle between good and evil.

(7) GUARDIANS OF THE FLAMES: by Joel Rosenberg...I haven't read this in a while but had good memories of it from about ten years ago. AD&D players basically whisked off to faraway lands and having to make the adjustments. Apparently seven novels now although I only read the first three.
Probably not worth it if you aren't familiar with RPGing games. Some inside jokes and such.

(8) IRON TOWER TRILOGY by Dennis McKiernan: okay, first off, this book is pretty much a ripoff of Tolkien. The author tried to get permissio from the Tolkien estate to a continuation of the LOTR, but they wouldn't allow it. So, withouth violating copyright, he pretty much set about setting up a storyline with a similar setting.
Regardless, I think it's a good enough story but only if you like Tolkien. If you don't like repeats, skip this guy.

Sir Galahad
User ID: 0798784 Dec 30th 3:11 AM

THE MEDIOCRE OR SOMEWHAT GOOD

(1) WHEEL OF TIME: by Robert Jordan...I only read the first novel and although I loved some of the ideas, I found the males overly passive and weak and the women bitchy. Moreover, very little seemed accomplished by the group so I left unsatisfied.
But again, this guy is a bestseller and is on his 8th or 9th book in the series. Some feel he's beaten a dead horse but it seems to pay his bills.

(2) THE DRAGONBONE CHAIR by Tad Williams: I really like the time that Tad took to describe the details and legends (note that I read only part of the first book), but there's just too much.
I feel slowed down and the story doesn't move fast enough in my opinion. And, the dealings of a Scullion boy named Simon, who's always getting into trouble, only holds my interest for so long. It wasn't until about page 180 that something big finally happened.
I'm going to try and finish the book at a later point to be fair but right now, it isn't high on my list.

(3) THE PAX SERIES by Wendy Moon: too dark and grim for my tastes. Interesting display of her military training. I read most of the first book but it was so bleak and so low key in fantasy elements that it turned me off. Too much time spent on one duke raiding another duke's castle w/o many interesting things happening.
THis is a favorite of a friend of mine but I never could get into it. If you like dark stories, this might be for you.

(4) DRAGONS OF PERN: not my style. Too slow or so I found in storyline. I read this ten years back so I can't really give more than my emotional memory of feelings towards it.

THE UGLY

(1) R.A. SALVATORE BOOKS: I read the first one of Drizzt and the fifth book was skimmed. While the whole Drow setup was interesting (I suspect that creator Ed Greenwood layed the paramters for this) I found the style high school reading at best. Mediocre in theme, bad dialogue with 20th century phrases at times, not enough details on characters and writing style that's hard to move along with. Ugggh.

(2) RENSHAI SERIES by Mickey Zucker Reichert: ugggh, this one is pretty bad. I read the LAST OF THE RENSHAI...the first 40 pages and was pretty disgusted. Perhaps the future books are better but I doubt it.
Poor character development in the beginning, no context in the beginning, way too much exposition which slows the action down and not enough surprises.

OTHER AUTHORS I WANT TO EXPLORE B/C OF GOOD MENTION: Guy Kavriel Kay, J.V Jones BAKER BOY SERIES and WIZARD OF THE PIGEONS by Megan Lindholm.

Okay, so feel free to email me at this address if you want to talk privately. Or holler away on here.

Malice
User ID: 0826264 Dec 30th 10:43 AM
Sir Galahad: please, do finish "The Dragonbone Chair", it's well worth the read. I remember being completely annoyed with the beginning, but after I finished the whole series, I was blown away. Now I am re-reading the beginning, because in my mind, it had always been inconsistent--in other words, not as good as the other parts in "Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn". I'm realizing that it was very well-written and its keeping my interest now...but I suppose you need to have read the rest of the thing to appreciate it...?

I'm reading, along with "The Dragonbone Chair", "Gates of Fire" by Stephen Pressfield. Historical fiction about the battle of Thermopylae, very well-written, obviously researched, and it offers what some reviewers call "a soldier's-eye view". I highly reccomend it.

Umm...more fantasy faves of mine would be: Robin Hobb books, I've only read "Ship of Magic" but it was quite good, Philip Pullman's trilogy-in-progress, "His Dark Materials" (which may be found at the young adult section of your bookstore, but don't be put down), Tolkein, of course, no matter how dry his writing is. His worlds are just fascinating.

And now I'll go and have breakfast. :)

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Dec 30th 10:59 AM
Galahad, I know the Iron Tower trilogy was an acknowledged "homage" to Tolkien, but it was such a blatant copy that I couldn't gag my way through it. Same with "Sword of Shannara", though I've heard that Brooks' other stuff is better. I agree about the Amber stuff -- the first five books were very entertaining and I really liked Corwin's dry humor.

Malice, I mentioned this before but if you liked "Gates of Fire", try "The Hammer and the Cross" by Harry Harrison. Its a very grity, realistic "alternative history/fantasy" set during the viking invasions of England in the 9th century. The sequals, though good, aren't _quite_ as good as the first, but the Hammer and the Cross is really a complete read in itself.

Sir Galahad
User ID: 0798784 Dec 30th 1:56 PM
MALICE: I'll come back to Tad's novel and give it another try. I've just got some other novels right now that move faster and hold my attention.
I'll probably read GRRM's two books again just for the pleasure of it all.

BTW, Robin Hobbs used to be Meghan Lindholm.

GATES OF FIRE and HAMMER AND THE CROSS both sound
good. I'll check them out.

JEFF: I agree on the IRON TOWER TRILOGY. But again, the author is admitting in the Foreward that he's trying to setup a time that can't be done anymore, since Tolkien passed away.

It sounds like you haven't read Brooks. While his
world tends to be very black and white (a common trait in high fantasy novels), I wouldn't place him in the same class as Dennis McKiernan.

I didn't really point my finger and say "Rip Off" when I read Brook's works. Keep in mind that SOME of the ideas which we consider to belong to Tolkien really do not.

As I mentioned above, Tolkien adapted some ideas from old mythologies. I believe the dwarves of Tolkien bear several similarities to the dwarves of Norse Mythology (i.e. great metal workers of weapons and magic and jewellery . . . living in the mountains . . . greediness . . . bearded and stout). The same could be said of a
fire breathing dragon, trolls that turn to stone, talking birds and evil goblins. And, oh yes, there were wee folk beforehand who liked good food and pipes and good conversation. Living in a nice hobbit hole was something Tolkien came up with on his own, I believe.

This isn't to slap Tolkien on the hand for adapting from several mythological sources but only to make the point that many writers build upon others.

While I agree McKiernan comes too close to the mark, I'm not so sure on Brooks. In his SWORD OF SHANNARA, the lands came about after a nuclear war of sorts. The dwarves are afraid of the dark, since they lived underground for so long . . . gnomes are evil . . . trolls are big and dumb . . . and the elves are similar to the Alfheim elves of Norse Mythology (immortal, love of nature, happy nature, beautiful in appearance, etc). Notice I didn't give Tolkien the credit for being the first to create the elves in such a way.

One last thing: the epic quest where we start off with a young male hero (at the brink of manhood and with no father), going on some perilous journey to save a nation or a society or himself is not from Tolkien. It's a very old story legend
since the beginning of time. Before Homer, too.
Check out Campbell's THE HERO'S JOURNEY.

Anyway, sometimes I think Tolkien gets too much credit for being stolen from, when the ideas are really even older. In essence, Tolkien brought many of the mythological legends together and created his own world. Based on that remark, the newer authors aren't really stealing from Tolkien then, are they?

CAVEAT: This doesn't mean Tolkien didn't create his own elements to his stories. He did but lets not act like everything he put in there was his idea alone.

Well, let me know what you all think.

Bill Hall
User ID: 0777594 Dec 30th 2:14 PM
I'm reading David B. Coe's "Chronicles of Lon Tobyn," and the second novel "Outlanders" seems worthwhile. He may be maturing as he writes, although his characters remain rather simple (in both meanings of the term).

Happy New Almost-Millenium

Ran
User ID: 8075153 Dec 30th 2:30 PM
I think the problem is that anyone who borrows the same things in the precise same manner is, by and large, using Tolkien as his stepping stone. He's not reaching back to the old legends and myths to create his own take on things.

For instance, Guy Gavriel Kay's Fionavar Tapestry. Even he admits that he was getting Tolkien out of his system, though he brought in plenty of elements that Tolkien didn't use (the Wild Hunt, Celtic gods, and so on.) But he more or less admits it and writes a pretty compelling (YMMV) story in his setting.

Take another, Stephen R. Donaldson and his Covenant books. Lets see ... beautiful, fair people who live in trees. Big, gruff folk who work stone. Evil, dark things which serve a big bad guy, who is also served by several terrible spirits. A council of wise, powerful people working against the evil. Long-lived Giants who love really long stories. Magical horses tended by a people living in a giant plain.

But, then again, he too makes things different and new. You can't look at it and start counting by the numbers. There's no little hobbit-like people living in holes or otherwise existing. He brings in Hindu concepts. And the Land is alive, which is the biggest 'innovation.' Oh, that and Covenant being a weak-willed, sniveling anti-hero with leprosy instead of strong, wise, valorous, fated Aragorn.

Now, Shannara ... everything I've read more or less tells me that the first book is a clear rip-off of Tolkien. It's not subtle borrowing from mythology to make something new, it's taking the book, dumbing down the prose, making a handful of modifications, filing off the names, and re-hashing it.

_But_, what I learned recently is that Terry Brooks did _not_ do that because he wanted to. Apparently some editor somewhere got the bright idea that if he got some guy to write a LotR rip-off, he'd make lots of money. Enter Terry Brooks, fresh-faced rookie writer. He gets hired and is told to pretty much do a re-write of LotR, no doubt being told to "liven it up."

So ... Brooks was sort of made to write _Sword of Shannara_ in the manner he did. Fine. I'm told he's grown rather much more original since then, which is fine. But given the evidence, to claim _Sword_ is not a LotR rip-off (with only a proportionally small handful of 'new' ideas) seems to me to be an error.

Dirjj
User ID: 1954724 Dec 31st 0:11 AM
Galahad, you have some good points and many bad ones.

The best ones are:
1. Jordan - Series has slowed down quite a bit and has gotten old, but the scope is so grand that how can you now like it. There are so many mysteries and side stories that you read the books over and over again, and still miss them. Jordan is a very detail oriented writer and leaves no stone un-turned. Can't stand the female characters though.

2. Martin - Great series, great characters, great story, a bit toned down, and with not so wide a scope. Loses points with lack of world maps, but gains many points for plot twists. Major props for message board.

3. Feist - first, second, and fourth Riftwar Books. Prince of the Blood and Kings Buccaneer were good to. Damn but that Sepent War series sucked!

4. Tokien - What can I say. The Grandfather of Modern Fantasy

5. Brooks - First 2 Shannara books

6. Williams - the Memory, Sorrow, Thorn series was great. The scope wasn't very grand, and the final plot was kinda stupid, but the story was great.

7. Eddings - The Belgariad was an awesome story. The characters were fun, the humor was great. This guy could have been a comedian. His West vs East war totally sucked though. His other 3 series' were basically the same story with minor changes.

That's all that I'll say are good:

These sucked:
1. Wizards First Rule - disliked it so much, that I didn't even bother with the rest of the series.

2. Runestaff - this was a Moorcock series that starred Dorian Hawkmoon. Why I read it, I can't exlain. The 4th book sucked big time. Talk about your hokey ending. Let's see, I'll attack an empire of Millions that controls the known world with an army of 50. Pppppllllleeeaaase

I am unqualified to judge the rest of the listed books. My liked and disliked books were not listed in any particulary order.

ab

Sir Galahad
User ID: 0276214 Dec 31st 2:14 AM
<<< Galahad, you have some good points and many bad ones. >>>

Well, right off the bat, we can see you're lacking
in tact and manners. And, you didn't back up your
wobbly claim.

How old are you?

Anyway, I'll reply to a few of your comments.

JORDAN: the reason he didn't work for me very well is because of the characters. If I dislike ALL the characters, why would I stick around? You alluded that the women are irritating. Don't forget the whiny boys who couldn't find their way out of a paper bag. Your threshold for pain, or time devoted to reading, is higher than mine. Keep in mind I only read the first book. He might get better.

FEIST: compare the RIFTWAR SAGA writing style to
PRINCE OF BLOOD. There's an obvious drop in grammar style and some of the passages get melodramatic.

WILLIAMS: I'm willing to finish the first book and see how it goes. But again, it goes slow in certain parts and there isn't much movement in the
first 180 pages.

GOODKIND: It's interesting you trash this guy
since he and Jordan are always compared. I only read the first one and part of the second (moved too slow with the mud people for pages and pages).
If you're such a fan of Jordan, you may want to give the guy another chance.

Oh, and regarding your comment on another board about how everyone is a passing fad, that may
very well be true for some of the authors. I'm
not sure where Jordan stands really. Fans tend to
remember you by your last work and apparently some of his fans have been turned off by his later works.

Brooks has been pretty popular and appeals to the
more simpler concepts of good and evil. If anything, he's more desired by publishers than ever before. Lucas had him novelize PHANTOM MENACE. His name obviously carries merit and brings in dollars. It doesn't mean he's fabulous but he has clout.

Tolkien had the most influence on fantasy writers for the latter part of this century (Lord Dunsay got the earlier part).

Too early to tell for Martin. Eddings and Feist seem to have developed some wonderful ideas and then spent too much time with the series, resulting in whitewashed results.

Sir Galahad
User ID: 0276214 Dec 31st 2:39 AM
<<< But given the evidence, to claim _Sword_ is not a LotR rip-off (with only a proportionally small handful of 'new' ideas) seems to me to be an error. >>>>

RAN:

While SWORD OF SHANNARA was probably only a good
book, I really liked ELFSTONE OF SHANNARA (the second one) so I kept the trilogy in the very good
section.

That aside and regarding ripping off Tolkien, it's hard to rip Tolkien off because a fair chunk of his ideas were adapted from Norse and German Mythology. This includes the creatures I described above. He also took something like 14 names (verbatim) for his dwarves (and the names he took were dwarvish names from the ELDAR EDDA . . .
an old Norse equivalent of the Old Testament);
used several plot points from the Siegfried various legends (i.e. the ring that had all this power but created greed and moral decay; the hole in the Dragon's armor; the broken sword made whole again; the two brothers who fight over the ring, resulting in one slaying the other) and several other areas.

That isn't to say that every item in Tolkien's isn't adapted from somewhere but some are. If an author chooses to bring common fantasy monsters
into his setting, he's really borrowing the ideas
from older mythologies. And, he's going to have
a tough time making them different enough and he
chooses to do that, he should really give them
different names. Tad William's THE DRAGONBONE CHAIR did this with the Sidhe, which are pretty much based on the Irish faeries. Surprise!

My point isn't to trash Tolkien or to try and make
Brooks seem like he created everything on his own.
I'm sure he took from bits and pieces here and there. Most authors do so. Tolkien's Gondor is
a province in Ethiopia.

I do feel that too many people think Tolkien
invented all of these common fantasy elements and
then become outraged when some new author adapts
common elements that were around way before Tolkien wrote his works.

As for Brook's failing to create enough of his
own elements, that certainly isn't his forte.
He pretty much works with archetypes that are already there and don't need to be explained in detail. Most of his time is spent on detailing
the History (which I found interesting)and moving the story forward.

As for dumbing down prose, I haven't read the
trilogy in some time but I did read THE FIRST KING
OF SHANNARA last year. Liked it. Didn't find it
too simple as the DRAGONLANCE novels, with the
exception of HUMA.

Complicated words and melodic passages don't always make a good novel. Brooks keeps his prose
simple for the sake of some of his audience members, I think.

Of course, I enjoy GRRM much more but look at his
sales. He writes an adult, multilayered book and he isn't selling nearly as many books as Brooks did with the SWORD OF SHANNARA.

Anyway, I'm digressing. Hope that helped some. And, for those interested, my source on Tolkien is
TOLKIEN: A LOOK BEHIND THE LORD OF THE RINGS by Lin Carter. Not at Amazon but try Bibliophile.com for used books.

Dirjj
User ID: 1954724 Dec 31st 1:55 PM
Galahad, theres a thread, I think it's in OTHER TOPICS, that tells about alot of the Posters to the board. I've been a veteran here since the on-set, but have toned down my posting of late.

I didn't read all the books that you mentioned, but the ones I did read, well, we seem to have a difference of opinion on some of them. My tact get's better, bet to know me. Also, I didn't think my points were all that wobbly. I sometimes choose not to go into too much detail because my posts end up being super long, and I try to keep them short. Doesn't always work, but oh well.

Have a happy new year.

ab

Sir Galahad
User ID: 0276214 Dec 31st 3:09 PM
Dirj: All right. No problem. Happy New Year to you, too.

Sphinx
User ID: 8882983 Jan 1st 1:39 PM
I'm halfway through To Green Angel Tower at the moment, and it is amazing. I agree that Simon's scullion-boy exploits are not all that interesting after awhile, but there are a lot of things going on in the background that hold the interest.

In fact, in The Dragonbone Chair, Willams is setting up a lot of stuff for later on. It's kinda like the first season of Babylon 5, or even the pilot, for those who've seen it. Often mediocre, but important and full of hidden meaning.

Things are just starting to get good, but I have some predictions which will disappoint me if they turn out to have been correct. We shall see...

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Jan 1st 1:58 PM
Sir Galahad,

I'm actually very acutely aware of just what Tolkien borrowed from, though thank you for recapping some of the basics (though I believe Lin Carter is reaching when he says (suggests?) Tolkien borrowed Gondor from some place in Ethiopia -- he'd have done better to point out Uruk and Erech as borrowing from Mesopotamian history.)

The problem is not people borrowing from the same sources as Tolkien did. The problem is people borrowing from _Tolkien_ rather than going back and doing the borrowing from the original sources.

I.E., _The Sword of Shannara_. There's no digging back into the old sources and pulling out new elements. Brooks was ordered to more or less copy LotR, and he did that.

It's true that some people feel that Tolkien invented every single element he used, and that should be combated against. But waving a hand and saying, 'Oh, so and so has all these things which are rather similar to Tolkien .. but, they're just archetypes. They're unavoidable,' is being just a little too naieve.

An easier way to look at it: Tolkien wrote a unique creation borrowing from "public domain" myth and legends. Tolkien's creation is "copyrighted." IF someone else goes directly to the "public domain" and puts together their own unique creation, good. IF they borrow a little from Tolkien and mix in "new" elements from the "public domain", fine.

But if they skip looking at the "public domain" and go to the unique "copyrighted" work to draw from, that's a no-no (unless they're setting out to do a clearly labeled homage.)

Brooks borrowed from Tolkien, not from myths or legends or archetypes. That's obvious. That's what he was told to do, so one can't really fault him for earning a living, and no doubt he's moved further away from Tolkien over the years. Truth be told, I can't think of anyone else stealing from Tolkien as blatantly as Brooks. McKiernan's homage is clearly marked as such, Brooks' novel isn't/wasn't.

Dirjj
User ID: 1954724 Jan 2nd 1:33 AM
Ummm, for all of you, and us, who like to read books and find the beginning rather dreadful. . . series' do get better. I can't think of a series I read that started off awesome. Most books, expecially series' start off slow and work on getting you to like the protagonist. The Belgariad started slow, so did Memory, Sorrow, Thorn. WOT started slow, but I gave it time, and enjoyed it. I'll admit that I haven't given the Terry Goodkind series that chance yet. I suppose I'll remedy that soon.

ab

Sir Galahad
User ID: 0276214 Jan 2nd 2:09 AM
Grrr...I posted a reply to RAN hours ago but nothing up here.

SPHINX: I'll check out Tad's book again. It just moved slow for my tastes. I'm reading J.V. Jones' THE BAKER'S BOY which is actually fast moving and interesting. Right now, it's in the B to B+ range. GRRM is a straight A . . . Goodking is
about a B/B-, GUARDIANS OF THE FLAME is around a
B-/C+ . . . and Brooks is a B/B- . . . oh, and
I don't want to pick on Jordan since everyone seems to rag him. :)

RAN: First off, I remember reading that Del Rey himself compared Brooks to Tolkien, but I don't remember hearing/reading that he was told to make it just like LOTR. Got any documentation so that I can look up the source?

I still don't see much evidence that Brooks
lifted tons of ideas from Tolkien. Certainly I
see some parallels but as I said in a previous
post, the only race that seemed similar to those
of Tolkien were the elves. The dwarves, the men,
the trolls and the gnomes were all different (or
left out) from LOTR.

So too, the information on the Druids at Paranor
was more interesting than the the little information given on the wizards of LOTR.

I'm trying to remember the series since its been a while. I did read FIRST KING OF SHANNARA a year back and again, the only race that seemed similar to those of Tolkien (thought not a complete rip
off) were the elves (i.e. good with bows, fair
of face). There were several elements they had which were atypical of Tolkien elves: lived as long as humans from what I remember, no waybread or love for living only in forests . . . hmmm, that's all I remember w/o referring to the book.

Perhaps you can illuminate me on some of the examples you found which made you feel it was a Tolkien rip off.

And again, neither you nor I can say that Brooks
ripped off these universal ideas from Tolkien.
While some of the ideas are certainly similar, they're coming from universal sources.
Neither of us know so it's just falling into opinion.

Then again, if we're going to point the finger
w/o ESP into these authors, I could claim that
Tolkien ripped off several variations for his
story from the SIEGFRIED legends. And as I said
in another post, some of these examples were similar as in cause and effect (i.e. two brothers fighting over a ring and one killing the other; the hole in the armor of the hero which ended in his destruction; the golden ring that caused moral decay and greed; the talisman that made one invisible).

Public domain now but did Tolkien rip off the several skalds who sung of the tales of SIEGFRIED in the ELDER EDDA? Or, shall we be kinder and call it borrowing?

Suffice to say, the Tolkien estate never sued
Brooks/Del Rey for doing a carbon copy of LOTR.
While I agree that Brooks handles pretty simple fantasy elements of good and evil, he does a better job on emotional content of the characters.
And, as far as grading goes, I'd probably put him a notch down below LOTR (i.e. I gave the HOBBIT an A in my book report analysis . . . something I do on my own to learn from; no, it's not a school proect . . . FELLOWSHIP a B+ . . . TWO TOWERS may get higher or equal; probably higher since FELLOWSHIP moved very slow for my tastes . . . have to read the Brook's books over but I would probably give FIRST KING a B+ or A-; SWORD OF SHANNARA a B/B-; ELFSTONES OF SHANNARA an A-; I can't even remember the third one too well).

Okay, keep those angry retorts coming in! :)

P.S. I believe Lin Carter is female but could be wrong there.

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Jan 2nd 9:41 AM
I think others are more capable of noting the similarities between Brooks and Tolkien. The fact that there are many, many people who said they _didn't_ enjoy Brooks because his work appeared to them to be a straight Tolkien rip-off must mean something.

Further, many fans of Brooks actually counsel that he moves away from Tolkien and finds his own voice in his _later_ books -- meaning, his fans are aware that the first trilogy are extremely influenced by tolkien.

It's generally industry insiders who surmise that Brooks was told to rip-off Tolkien (by Lester Del Ray). Of course, Brooks wrote the first story on his own (while in college) as a lark, and no doubt plagirism didn't bother him at all when he had no intentions to publish it. But then it got published and they wanted two more books, and best stick to Tolkien . . .

Search deja.com for Shannara Lord Rings and you should be able to find some interesting discussions.

There's a massive, massive difference between borrowing from a common well-spring (legends, myths) and "borrowing" directly from a single author. For example, just because painter A uses the same techniques and materials as, say, Michelangelo, doesn't make him a thief of some sort. He's using similar techniques and materials that many people other than Michelangelo used in his time.

But then painter B comes in, looks at painter A's work and decides to do something _exactly_ like it -- he loved the techniques and materials that painter B used, he loved the precise subject, and he decided to do it over but with his own "unique" touches ... What do you call that? Borrowing again? When painter B barely recognizes the fact that Michelangelo and others did it before painter A?

That the Tolkien estate never sued doesn't mean much. That Terry Brook has said that he considers LotR the perfect epic fantasy and that he didn't want to "mess" with perfection is a known statement. Nevermind that there are critics who disagree and authors who have made their disagreement known by writing something other than Tolkienian epic fantasy, and that epic stories have been told long before Tolkien which didn't follow his outline.

So he followed the precise same outline, even though we _know_ you don't have to follow that outline to the letter to write a great book (otherwise we wouldn't be enjoying ASoIaF.)

That Brooks has different focuses than Tolkien are evident. His map is terrible (as I recall, one of his rivers runs uphill), he's got nothing like Tolkien's linguistic complexity, and so on.

Dirjj
User ID: 1954724 Jan 2nd 12:56 PM
One thing I liked about Brooks was that he put on a great battle.

True. Brooks elves lived just as long as humans, maybe a little longer, but not by much.

Also, the truest rip-off of Tolkien (I believe), not just by Brooks, but every author that makes use of demi-humans, is that they use the plural "ves" instead of "s". eg elves instead of elfs, and dwarves instead of dwarfs.

ab

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages