Jump to content

Worst fantasy books ever written ?


Agentorange

Recommended Posts

I kinda doubt there would be much Locvecraft stuff on the shelves now without CoC. Or that a lot of authors in the horror field considered him a major influence.

Stephen King specifically credited HPL as a major influence. So has Clive Barker. Brian Lumley even wrote a series set in HPL's Dreamlands. I could go on and on. Hugely influential.

But I concede the original point about HPL not seeming scary to the modern reader. I think that is because he was such a huge influence. His ideas that were ground-breaking at the time have now become routine. Since everybody else is using his ideas, they don't seem remarkable any more.

Kind of like any invention. The airplane for example. The Wright Brothers and their plane were important because they were the first. But that doesn't mean it is a good plane by today's standards.

:focus:

Worst Fantasy? I have to jump on the Wheel of Time bandwagon.

I was only able to get through the first few.

Started out hugely derivative of Tolkien.

The only romance was a very juvenile "We are both too shy to express our love" subplot. Tiresome.

And the climax was always a big magical battle within the minds of the hero and the villain. So there was this grand abstract imagery, but really it was a lot like Dragonball Z. "I just unlocked a thousand times more power" "Oh, yeah, well I just unlocked a bazillion times more power!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well... it certainly seems that way... until you actually read some of his stuff and notice that very few, if any, of his stories fit that mold.

The thing with the Mythos stories is, that once you've read a few... you start to anticipate the Mythos in all his stories... kind of a variation on 'the butler did it' syndrome in English mysteries... though how many actually feature muderous butlers (I suspect not many... but I wouldn't know).

Thats why I always thought it was important, in COC games, to toss in plenty of sessions where the Mythos played no part at all... and leave plenty of evil to good old human nature.

I may have exaggerated a little bit ;) Though he does seem overly fond of the words batrachian, squamous and rugose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the climax was always a big magical battle within the minds of the hero and the villain. So there was this grand abstract imagery, but really it was a lot like Dragonball Z. "I just unlocked a thousand times more power" "Oh, yeah, well I just unlocked a bazillion times more power!"

:shocked::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... it certainly seems that way... until you actually read some of his stuff and notice that very few, if any, of his stories fit that mold.

The thing with the Mythos stories is, that once you've read a few... you start to anticipate the Mythos in all his stories... kind of a variation on 'the butler did it' syndrome in English mysteries... though how many actually feature muderous butlers (I suspect not many... but I wouldn't know).

I believe it was a common theme in the stage plays of the late Victorian era. Not surprising considering the audience for such things.

Thats why I always thought it was important, in COC games, to toss in plenty of sessions where the Mythos played no part at all... and leave plenty of evil to good old human nature.

It's important in horror RPGing in general. One problem with horror RPGs is that thanks to the nature of the game, the players are sort of forwarned and expect to see monsters. That throws off a lot of the fear on the supermnatural. Instead of being afradi of having the vampire turn them into souless monsters or the werewolf rip[ing them apart, the PCs start toting around garlic, crucifixes, hammers, stakes, and assault shotguns loaded with silver buckshot.

By defination is become impossible for it to be horror anymore, since the players know what to expect. So a GM has to surprise them with what they don't expect. My best horor adventures were in "normal" RPGs where the impact was greater.

One of my favorite CoC adventures was one where the GM didn't use any Mythos stuff or monsters. We were up against gangsters (they didn't know what the funky statue was for, just that it was worth big bucks). It really threw the group for a loop.

Deep Ones are known to call you up on the phone and do a drive by shooting. Or wire you car with explosives. Or bribe officials.

We was scared. :eek:

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gaming group I used to play in had a CoC campaign before my time. They someone with 200% Shotgun and no other skills, they depth-charged the Deep Ones in San Fransisco Bay and went around with tommy guns knocking off cultists.

They had a whale of a time and actually survived to make a campaign.

Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. 

www.soltakss.com/index.html

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gaming group I used to play in had a CoC campaign before my time. They someone with 200% Shotgun and no other skills, they depth-charged the Deep Ones in San Fransisco Bay and went around with tommy guns knocking off cultists.

They had a whale of a time and actually survived to make a campaign.

My most successful CoC character, and my last, was someone who didn't believe in the mythos stuff, steered clear of books with arcane knowledge and spells (not that it was anything helpful to PCs anyway), and was the only character in the campaign who not only survived, but ended up with a higher SAN than when we started playing.:thumb:

The goal of the game seems to be to withstand enough encounters with supernatural creatures to go permanently insane and start up your own cult[/i} to worship supernatural creatures. :confused:

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Wow, good thoughts.

The gang with the 200% shotgun character sounds like my group :eek:

As for Worst Fantasy Novels:

Bottom line: 99.9% of D&D, Star Trek, Halo, Magic: the Gathering novels...all of them just SUCK (1 exception...for D&D "Knight of the Black Rose")!!!!!

Anything by Jerry Pournelle or Larry Niven...even though it is Sci-Fi, I hate it and must tell everyone that I hate it.

The Wheel of Time series. I have read the first 10 pages of each book and I just can't find the interest to justify wasting the time to read one more page...it sucks.

The Shannara series was....acceptable for one book...every other book is THE SAME...I read the sword of shannara, but the song and the elfstones were the same book and the moronic family of the Ohmsford's was too retarded to be taken seriously.

Matthew Riley and Scarecrow was pretty good IMO...it was a good four hour read on an airplane so that was good.

As for Lovecraft...his stories rock and along with Poe are IMO the two masters of American Fiction, regardless of what my Lit professors say (even though August Derleth was actually better at Lovecraftian writing that Lovecraft)!

-STS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would add the third Gor book, 'Priest-Kings of Gor' to the not awful Gor list. At least I thought so. The rest of the series I agree, I couldn't read them even when I was in my early twenties and read smut, well, sometimes...

I agree about Lovecraft too. I like Lumley and Ramsey better for Mythos fiction. CAS and Howard too. I am sort of an apostate when it comes to CoC, using more of a 'Lumley flavor' than the recommended 'Lovecraftian' we-are-doomed-to-go-crazy-and-die flavor. It's still very scary, or so I've been told by my players.

For bad fantasy, a couple of writers that get my vote are the Tolkien rip-off artists like Brooks and McKiernan. And Robert Jordan trying to write Conan stories. Or anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Slade, my major English Lit major in college though Lovecrafts' fiction was the greatest although he was not allowed to introduce it in classes. Prof. Merrill was a gun/train/horror loving geek in professor's tweads. Cool guy. I had him for Shakespeare...'two handed engine of destruction' and 'once more unto the breach, dear friends', two of his favorite quotes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Slade, my major English Lit professor in college thought Lovecrafts' fiction was the greatest although he was not allowed to introduce it in classes. Prof. Merrill was a gun/train/horror loving geek in professor's tweads. Cool guy. I had him for Shakespeare...'two handed engine of destruction' and 'once more unto the breach, dear friends', two of his favorite quotes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything by Jerry Pournelle or Larry Niven...even though it is Sci-Fi, I hate it and must tell everyone that I hate it.

I've never read Pournelle, but I'm extremely surprised to see Niven mentioned along with all of the really poor writers mentioned in this thread. (Though he is guilty a few times of not finding a good story to go with his wonderful scientific idea he wants to explore, but thats the exception.*) I won't argue with you, but I just was really caught off guard to see Niven anywhere around here.

* Some of my other favorite authors are guilty of putting out some real crap to go along with their great works. (Moorcock for example has great, classic stories and some that are just total dreck.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Worst ever, at least of those I have attempted to read:

Stephen R. Donaldson's "Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever".

Trying to read it was hard work, no fun involved ... :rolleyes:

"Mind like parachute, function only when open."

(Charlie Chan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was bloody minded teenager, the combination of angst and excessively obscure words hit the spot for me and I absolutely adored the Covenant books. But I haven't re-read them in many years.

But I can forgive Donaldson an awful lot for teh short pieces: "Unworthy of the Angel" and "Reave the Just", both of which I think are brilliant.

In contrast, thanks to a recent thread at RPGNet (following one here) I started trying to re-read The Verdant Passage, first volume of Troy Denning's Prism Pentad novels in the Dark Sun setting - and god, I'd forgotten just how flat and turgid the prose was...

Cheers,

Nick

Edited by NickMiddleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

As has been mentioned before, it can be important to consider some of the earlier authors against the expectations and standards of the time.

I love Lovecraft's stories, but by todays standards they are sometimes quite nasty racist pieces of work.

The good aspects of his work has been taken and resused by more recent authors so it is easy to overlook those parts.

I also find (and ducks for cover) "The Lord of The Rings" to be poorly written by today's standards. Don't get me wrong, it is my second favourite series/book of all time (The Hobbit is my favourite) and I first read it when I was about 10.

However, for many people his writing is hard to read. I know several people who have started to read it but given up. I suspect LoTR is the fantasy book that is the one that is most frequently given up on.

Some of his work is inspired by mythology that was probably not known by most of his readers when the work was published, but is now realtively well known by modern reads.

And I really really wish he had hadn't tried to write poetry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree at all.

The LOTR is significant as an iconic work. It is the common reference point for all fans of fantasy and is a part of the collected consciousness of not only fantasy fans but much of mainstream society.

There are much better written fantasy works out there, but none that are as universal as LOTR.

I also agree the Hobbit is much better written. It is an easy and enjoyable read, a tight and concise tale (compared to LOTR) that feels like a tale a wizard may spin by the side of a fire in a warm hobbit hole.

Tolkien gets more grandiose as his works move on. Don't even get me started on the Silmarillion.

To cut it some slack the LOTR is also a product of it's time - writing style has evolved since they were written. But still there is the Hobbit for comparison...

Help kill a Trollkin here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I much prefer sci-fi and horror over fantasy so I hardly read any fantasy. One serious case of a waste of my time was reading/skimming through The Clan of the Cave Bear, part one of Jean Auel's Earth's Children series. Suffice it to say I didn't even bother about the rest of the series. Do not waste your time on this load of pseudo-scientific New Age b.s. that's really nothing more than an overrated penny-dreadful that happens to feature mammoths.

Edited by Vorax Transtellaris
spelling error
RPGbericht (Dutch)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all:

I both agree and disagree with some of the above evaluations and observations. I wonder, however, --looking only at myself, mind you :) -- how much of my evaluation is not in truth based on solid "good" or "bad" merits of a piece of literature but on my own perceptions of what is good and bad. I.E. my own tastes in what I like or dislike rather than in any true flaws of the book at hand. Is the writing good or bad? Is the story good or bad? Really? Or is it simply my “screen-of-reality”, my own personal taste that labels it so?

I read Game of Thrones, for example. I belong to an online book club where people...not all, but a majority...simply gush over its storyline, imagery and characters. I, on the other hand, emphatically did not like it at all and wasn't afraid to express my views vehemently: the storyline was fracted; the imagery was sensational and the characters were, for the most part, flat and static.

After reading the above posts and preparing to add a slam of my own, however, I began to reexamine my criteria: just what was it about the book that, when I finished, I was not in the slightest bit tempted to read the next one? Characterization? Plot? Grammar? Style? Liberal use of deus ex machina? I narrowed it down to a couple of things having to do with plot and plot devices. I am not a fan of plots that raise strong and obviously important plot questions that in the course to the book are not worked back in or made reference to at all. I find such a plot hard to follow and makes me suspicious of the author’s ability to handle their work. Further, if any of you are wanting to read the book I'll put it as obliquely as I can: I have found in my reading that overdone plot devices—particularly dragons--are usually handled poorly and are simply used for "wow" factor when a desperate author is aware they might be loosing control of the plot and reader or has painted themselves into a corner and needs to get out. This over the top use of Deux ex machina (their suckling from a human, for the love of Pete L ), the author Martin, is guilty of—or is he really? :o

The other day a friend of mine related that on my advice, he’d bought a couple of fantasy books to read. He was a heavy comic book fan but wanted something a bit more. He later told me, “I now remember why I don’t like fantasy…I hate the names! Why do authors insist on using unpronounceable and ridiculously sounding names. It’s just a sound. At least [author ‘X’] had names that sounded like the English country side he was trying to emulate. I think these authors just make up a word that has no relation to anything and throw it in.” I made no comment, but it did get me thinking. Was what he was reading fodder for such an intense comment or was it simply his own difficulty in pronouncing foreign constructions that put him off?

Did Martin write a "worst fantasy book ever written" or just something that by using a literary-bugbear of mine, turned me off? Ya know, if I'm honest, I did read the whole book and it wasn't until the end that I was put off. He did actually write an impressive novel; one, for the most part, I did enjoy reading. Does the grandiose style of Tolkien’s Silmarillion put off? Does the overt Christian allegory of Lewis repel? Does Herbert’s eco-centric theme distract? Or am I simply put off by anything with a grandiose style that seems like forced elevation, do I resent ”bait and switch” allegory, or am I simply tired of being bludgeoned with my shortcomings while tying to do some escapist reading?

Have any of you had that experience? That it was more sentiment and preference, which might have their roots elsewhere, rather than the poor storytelling abilities of the author that led you to hold a negative opinion of a book?

Cheers,

Sunwolfe

Present home-port: home-brew BRP/OQ SRD variant; past ports-of-call: SB '81, RQIII '84, BGB '08, RQIV(Mythras) '12,  MW '15, and OQ '17

BGB BRP: 0 edition: 20/420; .pdf edition: 06/11/08; 1st edition: 06/13/08

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I much prefer sci-fi and horror over fantasy so I hardly read any fantasy. One serious case of a waste of my time was reading/skimming through The Clan of the Cave Bear, part one of Jean Auel's Earth's Children series. Suffice it to say I didn't even bother about the rest of the series. Do not waste your time on this load of pseudo-scientific New Age b.s. that's really nothing more than an overrated penny-dreadful that happens to feature mammoths.

But you do get to learn a lot about flint knapping techniques, you never know when that might come in handy :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do not waste your time on this load of pseudo-scientific New Age b.s. that's really nothing more than an overrated penny-dreadful that happens to feature mammoths.

Whereas I thoroughly enjoyed that and the rest of the series. Some of it is a bit heavy, but I like shamans and primitive societies so I thought they were great.

Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. 

www.soltakss.com/index.html

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree at all.

The LOTR is significant as an iconic work. It is the common reference point for all fans of fantasy and is a part of the collected consciousness of not only fantasy fans but much of mainstream society.

There are much better written fantasy works out there, but none that are as universal as LOTR.

I also agree the Hobbit is much better written. It is an easy and enjoyable read, a tight and concise tale (compared to LOTR) that feels like a tale a wizard may spin by the side of a fire in a warm hobbit hole.

Tolkien gets more grandiose as his works move on. Don't even get me started on the Silmarillion.

To cut it some slack the LOTR is also a product of it's time - writing style has evolved since they were written. But still there is the Hobbit for comparison...

I too will join you guys undercover.

I think that "Lord of the Rings" is a great story, but I don't think Tolkein tells it very well. It not so much that I find his writing grandiose - I merely find it rather flat. He doesn't have the ear to pull off grandiose. He has trouble with characters (only Gandalf, Sam, and Gollum really show much personality) and, as I think Fritz Leiber pointed out, he lacks a good, powerful, scary villain (Saruman's offscreen almost entirely until the epilogue, at which time he seems merely petty, and Sauron is off-screen for the entire story).

He also grinds the story to a halt at least twice, once for a tiresome detour into the happy land of that insufferable Tom Bombadil, and then an even more tiresome detour into the entire history/sociology of a bunch of talking trees!

Now, this will really get me lynched, but I'll say it: I prefer the recent films to the book. I loved `em. Loved every minute of `em.

But I agree that, even if LOTR isn't the BEST fantasy novel, it's still a great one in it's way (flaws and all) and it is absolutely the most famous, celebrated, and influential.

Also agree about "The Hobbit."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...