SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Members' Chat
>
Which series got REALLY better as it progressed?
I would go the Dark Tower series.I thought the first Dragonlance series went really well. The Belgariad was one I thought got better.
Mmm, you could definitely make the case for the Vorkosigan novels. The first couple (WARRIOR'S APPRENTICE, THE VOR GAME) are pure space opera. But then as you go along it gets deeper. By the time you get to MEMORY it's amazing.
Codex Alera by Jim Butcher gets much better all the way through. The first two read as a coming of age story, and then progress to a "save the world from destruction" story that is handled magnificently. It's a very different setting than most fantasy.
I hope my trilogy will be on this list one day. Crap that means i have to finish writing it first. This website sometimes becomes a support group for people who waste time online instead of doing productive writing... see ya.
Not sure I can think of any that get better from each book, but I agree Codex Alera generally improves (I think books 4 and 5, from memory, were my favourites). I was a little uncertain of the first story in the Riyria Revelations as well, but the latter 5 were all very enjoyable.
I think Jack McDevitt's Academy series got stronger with each book
Codex Alera is on my to read list since I love the idea and Roman-era historicals and derivatives thereof. But waiting on finishing more of my own writing first. It's a shame how small this list is compared to the other one. I'd second Dragonlance Chronicles and I liked the continuation in Legends even more at the time, more than 20 years ago when I read them.
I'm only midway in Dark Tower so can't speak to that yet. But I have some ideas for the decline list.
I'm pretty demanding about endings, and have little tolerance for padding just to make a series, so it's really hard for me to think of series that got better as they went on.The Mrs. Quent trilogy
started out ok, kind of lame, the second book was a lot better, the third book had the potential to be pretty amazing but at that point there was just too much going on and I kind of got the feeling the author just wanted to make his point (a magical reason for societal oppression of women) and get out. Most of the major events in book 3 were told through narrative summary by someone looking back on them. :/So, sort of halfway fits this list.
Kevan wrote: "I think that a series would get better only if the author doesn't get carried away by the hype of success. It would be hard to up the bar with each successive book, as it is human nature to slacken..."I agree with everything you've said here. It seems to be very common for a highly successful author to start going a little off the rails once they've had a few years in the big time. I would be interested to know how long it takes a drop in the author's writing to start producing a drop in sales (if it ever does).
First Law Trilogy and the three stand alone novels by Joe Abercrombie.The first book was good, but the next ones were SUPERB.
im enjoying Discworld the more i read, im only 10 books in but the earlier book (1-4) didnt seem as good as the later ones.
There is actually a term for this, in the genre. It is 'the braineater.' As in, "Well, the braineater really got Heinlein by the time he wrote THE CAT THAT WALKED THROUGH WALLS."Sometimes it is not hubris -- not the author declaring that he poops solid gold and that no editor may ever touch a word of his glorious prose. (Although this does happen! John Norman, we're looking at you!) Sometimes it is sadder, like health issues. Zelazny wrote his last book or so while he was ill, and it shows. Wilkie Collins ground out a lot of hackwork because he was running two households (a mistress!) and suffering from drug problems, and needed the money bad.
I could name the Earthsea books by Ursula K. Le Guin in this category, the original 3 and the subsequent 2 are at least as good as the first one if not better.
Brenda wrote: "There is actually a term for this, in the genre. It is 'the braineater.' As in, "Well, the braineater really got Heinlein by the time he wrote THE CAT THAT WALKED THROUGH WALLS."Sometimes it is no..."
Agatha Christie had Alzheimer's by the time she wrote her last book. I want to say it was Elephants Can Remember.
Sanderson also has improved. Not throughout a single series so much, but when you look at Elantris and then at Words of Radiance, the disparity in quality is amazing (I liked Elantris, so that says a lot for WoR).Even just between The Way of Kings and Words of Radiance, you can see massive growth in his writing abilities.
I thought Speaker for the Dead was better than Ender's Game... but then the series got dumb, so maybe I'll give it half a point
Cemil wrote: "I could name the Earthsea books by Ursula K. Le Guin in this category, the original 3 and the subsequent 2 are at least as good as the first one if not better."Silvana wrote: "First Law Trilogy and the three stand alone novels by Joe Abercrombie.
The first book was good, but the next ones were SUPERB."
lol, and see, that's how tastes can vary - I'm just the opposite. The first and second Earthsea books are some of my all-time favorites, the third was ok, the fourth was dreadful, and I haven't even bothered to pick up the last two. Same with First Law; loved the first book, second was ok, third was a book-tosser for me.
I will agree on Mistborn. I could see Sanderson's huge growth as a writer through the series, though I wouldn't say the series itself improved hugely since it started out so good in the first place. Started strong and ended strong.
Wow! I was just thinking of starting a thread like this and for the same reason.Piers Anthony's Xanth series got better for a while, then fell off (it must be hard to crank out so many stories).
Heinlein's Lazrus Long stories got much better (it's only 2 books).
The Belgariad definitely deserves to be here.
John Bowers' Fighter Queen saga improved (5 books).
As did Bruce Davis' Profit Log series (3 so far).
Here's another rare one: Joy Chant. Her first book RED MOON, BLACK MOUNTAIN, was a Narnia clone. The second one, GREY MANE OF MORNING, was a tour de force -- a nearly perfect fantasy bildungsroman. (The third one, WHEN VOIHA WAKES, is very nearly unknown and was clearly an afterthought.)
I'd go with Steven Erikson's "Malazan Book of the Fallen." I'm on book seven, and each one has been better than the last.
Agreed. Ian C. Esslemont's Malazan Empire also got much better as it progressed. Blood and Bone was by far the best of the series.
Maybe controversial but I thought the Pern series got better as it progressed (if you take the main story arc and ignore the sideways excursions). I loved the way the series developed and how it mixed fantasy & SF together. Granted, some of the 'science' was pretty dodgy but if you didn't look too closely I think she pulled it off quite well.
I think Mervyn Peake's The Gormenghast Novels series got better as it progressed. The second book had a much clearer narrative drive than the first one and I find it to be a more enjoyable and satisfying reading experience. Although the third book could be seen as weaker and less interesting than the first two it again is a book I found more enjoyable and lean than the previous.I liked LoTR more than the Hobbit
Lloyd Alexander's The Chronicles of Prydain Boxed Set got better with each book.
It is a truth universally observed, however, that whenever the original author hands off the series to someone else (or dies and has it taken off her hands), quality does go down. I submit to you that the Pern novels were of this sort.
Here's an oddball case: the Cheshire fantasies of Alan Garner. WEIRDSTONE OF BRISINGAMEN and the sequel MOON OF GOMRATH were great YA-style fantasy, with questing teens and magic combat. Decades later he added a third volume, BONELAND. It is totally different, an adult psychological novel: totally different writing style, plot arc, characters, everything. It is not better, precisely, because that's not the kind of question that you can now ask -- is cheese better than Linux? But it is a real artistic leap.
Brenda wrote: "It is a truth universally observed, however, that whenever the original author hands off the series to someone else (or dies and has it taken off her hands), quality does go down. I submit to you t..."(cough) Sanderson (cough)
I actually liked the way Sanderson handled the WoT books. Compared to how Jordan handled those middle ones, it's hard for someone to screw up much worse than that.
I was taking contention with "truth universally observed" by citing a counterexample. It was clearer in my head than the words I wrote seem to have been.
Brenda wrote: "It is a truth universally observed, however, that whenever the original author hands off the series to someone else (or dies and has it taken off her hands), quality does go down. I submit to you t..."Robert E. Howard comes to mind. de Camp and co. did their best, but there is a distinct difference in writing style between the Conan material penned by Howard and everything else. Not that what the others did is bad, it's just different.
Scott wrote: "Robert E. Howard comes to mind. de Camp and co. did their best, but there is a distinct difference in writing style between the Conan material penned by Howard and everything else. Not that what the others did is bad, it's just different. "It's a bit bad. In the de Camp stories there was a paragraph introducing Conan that was used word for word in multiple tales.
Brenda wrote: "It is a truth universally observed, however, that whenever the original author hands off the series to someone else (or dies and has it taken off her hands), quality does go down. I submit to you t..."I'd agree with that. Once the main story arc was finished. They should have left Pern alone.
DavidO wrote: "I was taking contention with "truth universally observed" by citing a counterexample. It was clearer in my head than the words I wrote seem to have been."Ah, gotcha. Sorry my caffeine has only just started kicking in.
Luke wrote: "I actually liked the way Sanderson handled the WoT books. Compared to how Jordan handled those middle ones, it's hard for someone to screw up much worse than that."I concur, the later Jordan books felt quite sluggish and lethargic. He just couldn't move the plot forward with so many characters and his writing style.
Sanderson, in my mind, really energized the pace and got the characters where they needed to go, both plot-wise and in terms of character development. The last three books were very smooth reads, especially compared to the later Jordan ones.
Yep. Combined with the fact that Sanderson uses simplistic prose and doesn't go on long detours of description, his books really picked up the pace. I know a lot of people loved Jordan's descriptions, but they just slowed the whole thing down for me.
Dresden and Dark Tower, certainly. The Sanderson volumes of Wheel of Time. Harry Potter. Discworld, from what I'm seeing so far.
Daniel Abraham's The Long Price Quartet. The first book is a little slow in plotting and pacing and nothing really stands out. A Betrayal in Winter is better with the characters noticeably improving. The third and fourth books, An Autumn War and The Price of Spring, just blew me away. It's one of my all-time favorite series.Jon wrote: "I'd go with Steven Erikson's "Malazan Book of the Fallen." I'm on book seven, and each one has been better than the last."
Like Kyra on The First Law, I'm the opposite on Malazan. Somewhat anyway. After the first three, I found that the series varied in quality with some good, some ok, and some bad. I quit after Toll the Hounds.
DavidO wrote: "It's a bit bad. In the de Camp stories there was a paragraph introducing Conan that was used word for word in multiple tales. "I guess I was trying to be generous. :-)
I'll have to check out the repeating on my next re-read.
Chris wrote: "Dresden and Dark Tower, certainly. The Sanderson volumes of Wheel of Time. Harry Potter. Discworld, from what I'm seeing so far."Yes on Dark Tower. The first book had a lot of promise but I gave up after book 2. Not my thing.
For me, the two stand outs, where I felt where not only the story, but the author improved with the way they told the story are:Michael J. Sullivan Riyria Revelations
Jim Butcher Dresden Files
Both of these series started out with 3 stars for me and was into the 5's by the end.
I fell off the sled with Dresden Files, presumably before they got better. About 3 volumes in I gave up.
Glen Cook - Dread Brass Shadows is one of the best of the Garrett P.I. books by Glen Cook. The first one sets the tone, and they only get better as they go!
Brenda wrote: "I fell off the sled with Dresden Files, presumably before they got better. About 3 volumes in I gave up."Yeah, you need to go a few more books before they really start getting good.
All the series I'd list have been mentioned. Dark Tower, Dresden Files, Riyria, Codex Alera.
Malazan kept getting better for me, but with book 7 it started getting worse. I haven't like 7-9 nearly as much as I liked 1-6. The Bonehunters is still my favorite of the series.
I'm reading the last book now and the jury is still out. It seems like it has a lot of potential to go either way.
No, life is too short. I cannot give you five volumes to get up to speed. Why, at that point I might as well read WoT.
Brenda wrote: "No, life is too short. I cannot give you five volumes to get up to speed. Why, at that point I might as well read WoT."You can skip ahead in Dresden Files. The plot isn't that complicated, and it's very episodic. That said, I don't really recommend it as it's also a bit pulpy.
Brenda wrote: "No, life is too short. I cannot give you five volumes to get up to speed. Why, at that point I might as well read WoT."While I agree with the mindset, I generally plow through anyway. But, 95% of my reading is fantasy, so it's not like I have all these other genres to take up my time.
Brenda wrote: "No, life is too short. I cannot give you five volumes to get up to speed. Why, at that point I might as well read WoT."I agree, but not about the WoT part. Anything but that!
I would suggest that if you didn't find anything to like in the first few books, that even though the later books are better written, that they're all still about the same character, and you really won't find anything that will make you change your mind.
I liked the Dresden series from the start. The reason I suggested them for this list is that the writing and the stories both got better as they went on, but I still liked it from the beginning. Harry is still Harry, and if you didn't like him the first time around, I doubt that you'd like him much better the 10th time either.
Brenda wrote: "I fell off the sled with Dresden Files, presumably before they got better. About 3 volumes in I gave up."Yeah I honestly recommended friends start on 4 and just completely skip the first 3. That being said 4 will not blow your mind either it's just kinda the first one you actually need to read and you don't lose all your motivation plowing though 1 and 2 which were awful.
Three series come to mind. 1) Dresden Files 2) MZB's Darkover 3) Weber's Honor Harrington
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Changes (other topics)Rapture (other topics)
The Briar King (other topics)
The Black Prism (other topics)
The Blinding Knife (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Glen Cook (other topics)Michael J. Sullivan (other topics)
Jim Butcher (other topics)
Ursula K. Le Guin (other topics)
Ursula K. Le Guin (other topics)
Which series got significantly better as it progressed?