Jump to content

Worst fantasy books ever written ?


Agentorange

Recommended Posts

I read the Hobbit and liked it. Then I tried to read the rest of Tolkien's books, and found them to be ridiculously boring. I mean he beats most full-length novels Stephen King writes in regards to boredom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Remember that Tolkien was an ENGLISH English professor. ;) I actually read the trilogy first and then The Hobbit. I lived in San Diego at the time, home of Shamu, the killer whale or orca. When Tolkien starting talking about orcs, I envisioned whales running around in helmets and plate armor.

Others may have mentioned these, but for me Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time was poorly written, suffering from "triology-itis," as did Elizabeth Moon's The Deed of Paksinarion trilogy. While I finished Wheel and all three of Moon's books, they contained a lot of pointless incidents that seemed to be in there just to pad out the book into a series, that didn't have anything to do with the overall story. There were entertaining elements in each that kept me reading, but Jordan introduced a lot of characters and plot lines that he didn't resolve. Moon's series would have made a good single book had an editor had the guts to take a chainsaw to it and keep it focused on the story arc that eventually became apparent in the final novel.

Don't get me started on Sword of Shannara, the book that broke every writing class rule about "show, don't tell." I could have dealt with a shamelessly derivative plot if only it had been written well.

Thomas Covenant ... waaaaay too depressing. Didn't finish the one novel I sampled. Mercedes Lackey's Knight of Ghosts and Shadows had some good ideas marred by her obvious pro-lesbian/witchcraft agenda (does that make her the anti-Lewis?). Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern series starts decently but quickly gets weaker as you go along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've long since thrown away the books that I thought were bad - Calix Stay and Garafax Greythorn (or something like that) ring a bell as just such books. Also, anything that was published as a D&D book.

I recently read 'The Pastel City' by M. John Harrison and thought it was terrible - even though it's often cited with being wonderful (along with the follow-up, 'Viriconium'. I have seen both Moorcock and Harlan Ellison (authors I like and respect) speak fondly of these books, but I don't get it.

And here's an example of some very muddy writing (IMO) from something I'm currently reading. An opening paragraph, no less:

"Eyes like red lava peered from a face black as dead lava down the sheer mountainside at the snowy ledge that narrowed off into the chilly darkness barely touched by dawn."

Any guesses who wrote that?

Thalaba

"Tell me what you found, not what you lost" Mesopotamian proverb

__________________________________

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Eyes like red lava peered from a face black as dead lava down the sheer mountainside at the snowy ledge that narrowed off into the chilly darkness barely touched by dawn."

Mine eyes bleed rivulets of blood as crimson as Sunwolfe's searing hatred of MRQ while my mind screams in silent agony, tortured by the words of that foul sentence as if by an iron maiden of prose most bad; damn you Thalaba.

Help kill a Trollkin here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone know how to get half melted fifty-fifty bar spew off a flat screen? :lol:

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

"Eyes like red lava peered from a face black as dead lava down the sheer mountainside at the snowy ledge that narrowed off into the chilly darkness barely touched by dawn."

Well, that is the opening line to "The Seven Black Priests" from Swords Against Death by none other than Fritz Lieber. The tale initially appeared in Other Worlds in 1953. Good, scary villains aside, authors in glass novels shouldn't throw stones.

Thalaba

"Tell me what you found, not what you lost" Mesopotamian proverb

__________________________________

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with a lot of the comments here. I simply can't stand "good" writing, esp. stuff written by people who obviously went through 'creative writing' courses. LOTR has long 'detours'. So what? We are being immersed in the best fantasy world ever, period.

My favourite book is the Water Margin... its numerous detours are one of its well-known features. I simply love all those stories within the main story.

Lovecraft was a racist. OK, but would you rather read Lovecraft or a dull novel by a contemporary author who abides by all the rules of political correctness?

Anyway, I believe the test of time is the best test. If Lovecraft, Tolkien, Leiber (and Poe, and Hoffmann) are still famous today, it is because their work is so great. I can't possibly find anybody alive today who is half as good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I simply can't stand "good" writing,

I just have to hold this statement over your head as you defend LOTR :)

We are being immersed in the best fantasy world ever, period.

That is of course just opinion. It is an opinion shared by a whole lot of people without a doubt, but there are no absolutes in the appreciation of art. Beauty is as always in the eye of the beholder.

As our resident Book burner and MRQ Hater #1 wonders:

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?

[Lots snipped]

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?

I would say that every one's perception of any work is wholly based on their "screen of reality", or it should be, because otherwise they are basing how they perceive the work on the opinions of others.

Lovecraft was a racist. OK, but would you rather read Lovecraft or a dull novel by a contemporary author who abides by all the rules of political correctness?.

Depends on the contemporary author. Trends in writing, just like fashion change. While I don't read much contemporary fantasy right now (mostly history and current affairs non-fiction with some sci-fi mixed in - plus of course RPG books), I think the current trend is towards efficient writing, and honestly I like it when it works. Like any style, it works well in the hands of some and not in others.

I also like Dylan Thomas a lot, and he breaks every rule Strunk and White laid down in the classic writers handbook "The Elements of Style". Thomas is unfocused adjective heavy rambling at it's finest. Does that make the advice given in "The Elements of Style" bad? Not in my opinion. A writer has to find their voice, and I think the best do. The rest may follow the rules, and even get published, but their works will ultimately be lost unless they stand out to a significant readership enough to passed on into the future.

Anyway, I believe the test of time is the best test. If Lovecraft, Tolkien, Leiber (and Poe, and Hoffmann) are still famous today, it is because their work is so great. I can't possibly find anybody alive today who is half as good.

While I enjoy the stories of all of the authors you mention, I do not consider all of them the greatest of writers. All of them are pioneers, and tell a good story, and some make you think quite a bit, but with the exception of Poe (and the Hobbit) I don't think the writing itself is actually that great. I have been reading Howard's Solomon Kane stories lately, and while they can be fun, the writing isn't the best IMHO, though they are classics for sure.

Don't get me wrong about LOTR. Overall it is great epic story, solid plot, and respectable (if a bit shallow) message all in a deep and well realized world, plus it has after all contributed more to fantasy (and hence indirectly the RPG hobby we hold dear) than any other work. But the last time I re-read it I must say the act of reading it was not the high part of the experience. In the end the whole experience is rewarding, but getting through the actual damn words was a chore at time.

On the other hand my guilty pleasure is Elmore Leonard novels (contemporary crime and some westerns). Honestly he has never written a really good ending, and about half of his books are in the end just ok (some though are very good), his books are a pleasure to read for me (the characters and dialogue are always great, which is enough to keep even the mediocre books moving) and the pages just turn themselves.

Ideally the best books get it all right - the writing, characters, plot, dialogue, suspense, imagery, and emotions. In the end that sweet spot is going to be different for each person's own "screen of reality".

I should stop now. Do forgive me for this Silmarillion of a post (ahh, the irony...).

Help kill a Trollkin here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've long since thrown away the books that I thought were bad - Calix Stay and Garafax Greythorn (or something like that) ring a bell as just such books.

Notoriously bad books by Neil Hancock. I confess I've read and have a soft spot for the first two. They're quite wild - funny animals up against brutal orc-like baddies, swords and sorcery mixed with gunplay. Long stretches of bad writing rubbing up against shining moments of really good writing. Very, very weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I have to side with Gianni Vacca on everything he said. I took a number of creative writing courses, and I think the only book worth buying for anyone who wants to write a novel that sells is Immediate Fiction: Amazon.com: Immediate Fiction: A Complete Writing Course: Jerry Cleaver: Books regardless of what any literary fiction writer says!

Literary fiction, as taught in creative writing classes only serves one purpose: to write in a style that can convey a whole story in 12 pages or less so the teacher and class doesn't have to spend too much time reading a single story. And I love how teachers like to say or imply that it's genre-less. The reality is that literary fiction may actually be the most rigid of all the literary genres (SF, fantasy, etc.). And is really quite "by the numbers" as well, no matter what some egoistic and "original" literary writers think.

If you really want to get right down to the nitty gritty, literary writing is nothing more that memoir writing about fictional characters--usually following the exact same rules. And memoir writing is considered a genre!

Personally, I like my reading to be over-the-top and excessive with little or no regard to political correctness. Also, I like just about anything that makes the action the central focus.

I think character development is overrated. If the character starts doing something different that makes sense in the situation, then I consider it character development. I don't need a bunch of paragraphs telling me that it is. I can also discern what a character is feeling by what's going on and a sentence, and not much else. I read mostly for the sense of adventure and action, and whatever other strong emotion or mood is appropriate to the genre. "Good" writing bogs down emotion and makes it bland. "Good" writing, to me, is the ability to convey the proper mood and emotions in as succinct a way as possible. However, there are exceptions...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, to an extent, with Gianni, too.

I really like Tolkien. The Lord of the Rings is written with a very distinct voice that has never been replicated - the language conveys a sense of age, of innocence, of melancholy. It's not abook about heroism - it's a book about the little guy making do with what he's been given in life. And quite frankly Middle Earth remains one of the deepest of fantasy creations - it is alive for so many people because of the detail, and pretty much nothing else comes close (caveat - I think Glorantha comes close, but is less accessible as a setting). I suspect that's what Gianni means, anyway. I don;'t think Tolkien structured TLOTR very well, I don't like his rhymes very much, and I think there are long, boring stetches, but I still love the books and certainly don't think they deserve to be in a thread about "the worst fantasy books ever written".

I disagree with Gianni that Lieber must be great because he's stood the test of time. He hasn't, really. Lieber is not a household name - he's only known to a rather small circle of fantasy enthusiasts and role players, and I would argue that this is mainly because his creations got pretty good treatment in Dieties and Demigods and this piqued a lot of people's interest. I think some of his stories are well written, and others (as I have shown by example) are less so. He is an average writer, in my opinion, but he sure had some great plot ideas and that's the main reason I like reading him. I much prefer Howard for the clarity of his writing and the poetry that lay just beneath the surface of his prose, but he had fewer fantasy stories to tell (in terms of variety).

I also disagree that contemporaries cannot be found. The alternate earth books of Gavriel Kay are wonderful (especially the second book of the Sarantium series, and Tigana, and The Lions of Al Rassan). I also really enjoyed the Dragonbone Chair series by Tad Williams. But I do not attempt to compare these to the Lord of the Rings - they are completely different things. Tolkien wrote very much like the authors of the Golden Age of SF - his books are all about ideas, not about the characters. The main character in LOTR is Middle Earth. It's not Frodo who's memorable - it's 'Hobbits' as a whole. In classic SF, the books are all about "what if?" - the people are usually incidental - a means of conveying the larger idea.

Contemporary writers put more effort into the people in the stories, and probably a little less into the Big Idea (vague hand waving around generalities, here). So if you happen to be a Big Idea person, you'd probably like the older books (as I generally do). If you like character and their interaction with one another, go for contemporary books.

At least that's how I see it here and now. Tomorrow, I may have a different opinion.

Thalaba

"Tell me what you found, not what you lost" Mesopotamian proverb

__________________________________

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Chainfire finally made me give up on the series. The same problems that were presented at the beginning of the novel were still there at the end of it. Nothing really changed throughout the book or was resolved. The only thing it felt like it accomplished was making Goodkind more money.

Naruto_Signature_by_hiraku07.jpg

Naruto Forever. Can't wait for a Naruto MMORPG

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...