Have you ever had an Author....

[K.F.]

Leo (Rahien Sorei) wrote: "Except Terry Goodkind is so much more preachy and gratuitous than RAH or Jordan. Isn't the second book (The Stone of Tears?) essentially about a castle full of women trying to sleep with Richard?"

Hey - as long as they have good reasons... ;)

I find looking back on "old" versus "new" versions of author's writings very interesting. Especially if they have fans of their old, and fans of their new, but not much between. What got people initially interested isn't what they're doing now.

Not saying authors don't get worse with time, just that it's an intriguing point for me.

[Christy]

Michael wrote: "Leo (Rahien Sorei) wrote: "It seems to be suffering from the same problem Jordan ran into in The Wheel of Time series - the cast gets too big, and we wind up wandering farther away from the main id..."

I definitely agree with you about Weber's Hell's Gate series--not only was there way too much going on, but it took them so darn long for anything to happen. I really like many of Weber's books, but that series just couldn't keep my interest.

[Peter]

OH MY GOODNESS YES! The most pertinent example would be Kim Stanley Robinson. I accidentally ran across the prologue and first chapter of 2312 on Flipboard, and the imagery was dazzling. So I picked up a copy of the book, and it was like a baloon popped in chapter 2. After a breathtaking intro, the novel immediately devolves in political ego-stroking. He freaking includes his NOTES as filler chapters, for crying out loud. The entire book is an excuse for KSR to stand on his soap box. So I've had this experience in the space of less than 100 pages. I quit halfway through 2312, something I've literally never done in my life.
A more long-term example would be Frank Herbert. The first 3 Dune books were propulsive, energetic, mind-bending adventures. I know a lot of people out there loved God Emperor, but to me that book was an eventless mess that consisted almost enturely of a single character's internal monologue...and the thoughts expressed are circular and often trivial! From that point on, Dune lost its steam for me. Nothing interesting or memorable happened in book 5, and I never finished book 6. And I never understood the obsession with Duncan Idaho. He was barely in the first novel! And he was BY FAR not the best character! A faithful knight? Gee, how original! Why did Herbert make such a big thing of him? I mean, the whole thing with the succession of gholas in God Emperor was pretty cool, but it didn't bear out the exhaustive treatment it received.
I guess authors can't always be working at peak level.

[Trine]

I think that the only author that I've experience this problem with is George Martin.
When I first read the books I tore through them, immersing myself in the world and the story. However, when I re-read them after Dance came out I discovered that I had a lot of problems with his books, and not just the lack-lustre Dance.

I found that I really didn't like the first book at all because many of the characters really didn't feel plausible in a medieval, feudal society (Ned especially). That is mainly because Martin writes a plot-driven story, and not a character-driven one. I also was really squicked out by the way the pre-pubescent Sansa was sexualized and I found his description of Dany's wedding night rather creepy and not realistic at all. I very much read like an odd and creepy wish-fullfilment fanatsy rather than a realistic portrayal of a how that experience would plausibly proceed between a teenage girl sold into marriage with a man she can't even communicate with, especially since the text hereafter describes their sexual interactions in a way that highlights that Drogo isn't really interested in Dany's consent or comfort. (Until she takes charge of the sexual encounters by getting on top, lol)

I also have a problem with the all the sexual violence wall-papering the books. I didn't really notice the first time because I raced through the books wanting to know what happended next but it became noticable on the re-read. And it was just that rape is everywhere but, like everything else, Martin amps it up to grand guignolesque proportions: the rape-stands at Harrenhal where women a locked in to be used by the soldiers, Euron Greyjoy having naked nobelwomen servicing their conquerors at their feast, etc. For an author who prides himself on his realism his tendency to amp up the violence to an almost ludicrous level, this becomes a problem for the suspension of disbelief, at least in my experience.

Secondly, I feel that Martin is overusing certain devices: like cliff-hangers, resurrected people, trying to overturn tropes. The last thing worked well in the first books, but it is a device, like the cliff-hanger, that should be used with discernment, otherwise it because a stale trope in itself. I think pert of the problem is the many years between the publications of his latest books - because a lot of new authors have tured to his trick over inverting common fantasy tropes, so what he's doing has come to feel stale.

Lastly, I actually have a big problem with the nihilism of his narrative. I hate that pratically no one in his universe exhibit any empathy (Sansa, Sam and Brienne does) or human decency - because this isn't really realistic, something I have discovered from my study of history. There are always some people that are decent and insist on justice, even in the most horrific situations. They might not always win, but they are there and there were/are more of them that you would think. I feel this is very much a product of the time Martin began writing this series. The 1990s were a decade where the world felt relatively safe (from a Western POV at least) and a decade where nothing were taken seriously and everything was ironic.

Well, the world has changed, and it feels a lot less safe - and I think that we, as a society, actually need stories of decent people, of people who don't succumb to their worst impulses or gets punished for their decent behaviour. In dark times, we need hope and something that can inspire us to be better people, not relentless nihilism, which I find depressing. For all I care, Westeros should go under in a freezing cold never to revive again.

That is actually why I like Jacqueline Carey's first Kushiel trilogy. Her heroine is smart and well-educated (even a scholar). She suffers and endure but she never ever loses her emphathy or her ability to love - and I actually think that is an important point. I say this as someone who has endured and survived neglect and mental abuse and always tried not to become bitter, not become distrustful and to retain some joy in life. And I tell you that this is diffucult, having grown up around people whose traumas have soured and embittered them to the point where they had to take out their bile on everyone around them, even the children. In dark periods of my life, literature has actually helped me - and it were not books like George Martin's or Scott Bakker's.

I also hate how Martin constantly makes his world even more gory and the behaviour of some of his characters more and more outlandish. I think that is due to his need to constantly up the ante, to surprise and shock - and that is another device that should be used sparingly otherwise it becomes stale and the reader jaded.
The length of time between the published books is another problem: it is very easy to stop caring about a series where you wait 5-6 years or even longer between the installments.

Bottom line: I have problems with his work, both artistisc and ethical ones. And I'm finding it hard to care about his world and the characters any longer.

[Nerva]

Trine said: Well, the world has changed, and it feels a lot less safe - and I think that we, as a society, actually need stories of decent people, of people who don't succumb to their worst impulses or gets punished for their decent behaviour. In dark times, we need hope and something that can inspire us to be better people, not relentless nihilism, which I find depressing. For all I care, Westeros should go under in a freezing cold never to revive again.

This I coulf not agree wuth more. As for these themes and ideas ending up in YA books... I am just shocked and horrified. Where are the authors accountability and conscience about what they are puting out into the world?

Anyway rant over :-P , I agree that GRRM over uses the drama and violence a tad to much...as for his killing of characters... it was ok for a few characters (some I was even happy to see go!) but he over did that as well.

[K.F.]

Wracking my brain trying to think of a series I used to love, but now don't:

Animorphs, by Katherine Applegate. I LOVED them, in the beginning. It was a funny series, with lots of action, and I really enjoyed the books switching from character to character. The spin-offs, and choose your own adventure versions were also a lot of fun.

Not sure why I paused the series - probably got busy with other things - but I remember trying to pick it up again in a later book, and thinking "WTF? That doesn't even make sense!". It was when they had spent dozens of books going over the importance of not revealing themselves, and then they up and show off their power to a group of random hikers to try to scare them away? Completely lost interest after that.

Glad I did, too, after reading the wiki on it. Hated how it said the series ended...

[Ciara]

I read Terry Goodkind so I know what you mean. the end of the 12 book series didn't upset me, but I hate books 5 and 7 in that series. I read the first book in the next series but I'm undecided whether to continue.... I noticed the preachiness but it didn't bother me so much until he self-published his sequel, and then it was like without a publisher to keep him in check he went nuts.

Also Terry brooks and Raymond E feist felt to me like they just got repetitive and lazy.

[Christine]

Having seen all of the available 'GAME OF THRONES SERIES' but NOT having read the books...George RR Martin is a genius and the one who does not let up. He gets better and better... can't wait to see the rest of it, which is still 'up his sleeve'.

[Nerva]

Oddly some times writing to a formula isn't bad...tae the xanth series (and even the Discworld books to a degree)they are written to a certain formula and it works, yes I woukd never recommend to try nd read all 30-odd in one go as that would get a bit much but then I dont think they were written for that.


Anyway certain books have a few set things that make them stand out from the genre of are just a part of the series (this excludes GOT as GRRM really did go a bit OTT) and you can't expect an author to change everything about the series halfway through...I have read a few series where the author has done that and they were dreadful!

[Trine]

Ciara wrote: "I read Terry Goodkind so I know what you mean. the end of the 12 book series didn't upset me, but I hate books 5 and 7 in that series. I read the first book in the next series but I'm undecided whe..."

I have never read Goodkind and don't intend to, but I'm just impressed that you finished a 12 book series. I rarely read beyond trilogies.

[Steven]

Trine wrote: "I think that the only author that I've experience this problem with is George Martin.
When I first read the books I tore through them, immersing myself in the world and the story. However, when I r..."

I came late to the Game of Thrones party (I'm just finishing book #2 right now) but I've decided I will not read all of the cycle. I can't maintain interest in characters in an arc that takes that long to complete. It seems like needless overextension just for the sake of $$$$$$$. I need closure, damn it! I may read the last one just to see how it ends and how many (if any) characters from the first book lasted all the way through. As I remarked somewhere (I can't remember where) G,R.R. Martin is the anti-Tolkien: rape and debauchery is everywhere in Westeros, in Middle Earth it doesn't exist at all.
The first book of Game is GENIUS, to be sure.

P.S.: I thought the title of this thread was "Have You Ever Had An Author?" — my dirty mind. :D

[Nerva]

Steven wrote: "Trine wrote: "I think that the only author that I've experience this problem with is George Martin.
When I first read the books I tore through them, immersing myself in the world and the story. How..."

Lol you really don't need to worry about following the characters through all the books, more than half die soon after book two and those characters don't stick around for long either! And as for the last book...lets just say I'm not holding my breath that A. it will resolve anything if the story and B. Will actually get published/written.

[[deleted user]]

Trine wrote: "I feel that Martin is overusing certain devices: like cliff-hangers, resurrected people, trying to overturn tropes...."

The old "going against trope" trope. :)

[[deleted user]]

Trine wrote: "I'm just impressed that you finished a 12 book series. I rarely read beyond trilogies...."

I enjoyed reading all 15 Wheel of Time books.

I do sometimes get tired of a long series, though that's usually different than feeling the author somehow changed so I no longer enjoyed his/her writing. it usually just meant I got tired of the same characters/setting.

E.g., I stopped reading the Honor Harrington series after a dozen books, not because Webber changed, but probably more because the stories didn't. Like eating the same sandwich for lunch every day.

[Jim]

Usually only a character I really like can keep me reading a series for too long. That's why I still read skim the Anita Blake books. A coworker buys them & I read for Edward. I gave up on Anita 10 books ago, but he's an interesting character.

Donald Hamilton captured me with his Matt Helm series that way, plus I just like the way Hamilton wrote. He had been to the places & done the things he describes. He learned sailing & eventually lived on his boat and often hunted game in place he describes Helm hunting people. That sort of realism & attention to detail is something I really like.

Humor doesn't keep my attention the same way. I really liked the first few Xanth books & read a couple of others in the series. They were a like a good but worn out joke after that. I never found Pratchet's humor funny enough, but a lot of my friends really like him. I've never cared for Monty Python either, though. Humor is tough. Seems to either hit me square or miss me entirely & I guess my sense of it is a fairly small target.

[[deleted user]]

Jim wrote: "Humor doesn't keep my attention the same way...."

Yes, humor is really strange in terms of taste. A couple of Xanth & Discworld books were sufficient for me. (I'm not much into comedies on TV or movies, either.)

I did mix two different kinds of "series" earlier. "Wheel of Time" and "Song of Ice and Fire" are a single story spread over multiple books. Matt Helm, Anita Blake, and Honor Harrington are repeating characters and settings with multiple distinct stories (sometimes with minor running continuity.)

I haven't read Anita Blake myself, but I've read comments from a number of people who suggest Hamilton went off the rails somewhere along the way. So that's probably an example of fans not liking the way an author changed. Whereas Xanth (or Honor Harrington) is more an example of "fresh and inventive" becoming "old and familiar".

[Trine]

G33z3r wrote: "Trine wrote: "I'm just impressed that you finished a 12 book series. I rarely read beyond trilogies...."

I enjoyed reading all 15 Wheel of Time books.

I do sometimes get tired of a ..."

That's my problem with long series like that. In the end the individual books and plots come to feel remarkably similar, at least that's what I experienced when I read urban fantasy, where the series never end. Another problem I have with GRRM is the extraneous bloat that especially characterizes Dance. That book needed a more strict editor.

I mostly read stand-alones nowadays, and I'm really impressed when an author can produced a wonderfully dense and compressed book, where page count doesn't interfere with the quality. My example of this kind of book is Byatt, Antonia's Ragnarok. It is both an exploration and re-telling of Norse myth, but filtered through a young girl's reading experience during WWII.

[Jim]

G33z3r, I think you pegged the differences between the various series perfectly. Authors do change. It's perfectly natural, but I don't always like the changes. I feel betrayed when they change the entire nature of a series like Hamilton did. I didn't with some other series that went downhill, was just disappointed. I also generally prefer series where each book stands well on its own. I detest cliff hangers. Philip José Farmer left Kickaha hanging at the end of the 3d book of his The World of Tiers series & then took a decade or more to finish the series with 2 more books. One of those was just weird & the last was unsatisfactory, to say the least.

I've really lost a lot of my respect for Martin after seeing his answer to his fans who are wondering if he'll finish his series - a valid concern. Not only is it getting bloated, but he's just rude. Yes, I know he struggled for years, but now that he's made it, there's no reason to be an ass about it.

[K.F.]

Jim wrote: " I also generally prefer series where each book stands well on its own. I detest cliff hangers. Philip José Farmer left Kickaha hanging at the end of the 3d book of his The World of Tiers series & then took a decade or more to finish the series with 2 more books. One of those was just weird & the last was unsatisfactory, to say the least."

Completely agree with your point, Jim. I LOVE it when a series book can stand on its own. You COULD read the next installment, but the current one has enough closure to justify spending the time with its story and characters. I feel much better reading a story like that, than where the character is right smack dab in the middle of an action or event and then the book ends.

Not to say the book needs to have complete closure for me to enjoy it - just enough so I don't feel like I've wasted my time and should have just waited for the next book to come around before even starting the first.

[Jim]

Exactly, K.F., but I really appreciate it when a series can be read out of order, too. That's one of the strong points of the Matt Helm series. Sure, some points are stronger for having read the previous books, but they were quite satisfactory no matter what order they're read in.

Of course, not every series lends itself to that easily. Some are building to a culminating point, but a good author can handle the back story well. They often need to in series where years might go by between books or the appearances of a character. It's a tough path to walk & one where an editor is mandatory. I'd rather have no back story than a long recap. I hate it when an author treats me like an idiot with no memory. This is a far worse sin when listening to a book where skimming isn't really possible.

[Brenda]

I do appreciate the dexterity with which Lois Bujold handles a long series. Her Vorkosigan books (14? Somewhere around that number) contrive to cover all the plot/character bases and still be new.

[Jim]

And they were published out of chronological order & still very readable.

[Matthew Reads Junk]

Yeah, the Vorksigan books are a perfect example of a series that can be read in nearly any order and each book offers something "fresh".

The same sandwich every day charactersization by Geezer is very apt. I definately felt that way after the Shannara novels and Modestit's Chaos series.

[Bryce]

Terry Brooks states that all the Shannara books can be read out of order, but I had to get on his web site just to see what the right order was. I'm not sure if that is true, I've maybe read about half of them, but I feel like I would of been very confused had I not looked up the order.

[Wastrel]

Althalus wrote: "Natalie wrote: "I think you guys are missing the point. When royals play the game of thrones- lots of people die. Even good ones. I really think that's what he's trying to convey.

I only have t..."

There's a lot of hysteria around the death count in ASOIAF. But let's try to anchor this in reality: in the whole of the five books written so far, a grand total of two POV characters have died (not including people who were just given one or two POV scenes to lead up to their death), one of which was inevitable in hindsight. In addition one other main 'good' character has died - a death that was massively foreshadowed all along - and two significant villains have died.
In addition, there have been about a handful of minor, non-plot-relevant characters who have died where the character's been given a little bit of background so that the reader might care a little.
[There are a couple more characters who may or may not (but aren't) dead, currently in cliffhanger situations, who I didn't count]

The hundreds of people who have died were almost all background names, most of whom never even had a single scene. And on the other side of the equation, almost the entire core cast is still alive. In raw numbers terms, it's actually no bloodier than traditional non-grimdark fantasy - or even less: in the Dragonlance novels, for instance, of the seven core characters meant meet up at the beginning of the first book, only one manages to survive to the end of the seventh book (which more or less concludes the original story), and he and most of the other surviving signicant characters are all killed offf in the sequel trilogy. And that's a positively optimistic survival rate compared to someone like David Gemmell!

The difference is more just that Martin kills his characters unexpectedly, whereas most of the older books killed most of their characters at 'appropriate', usually heroic, times.

[Horza]

All up it's something like 300 named character deaths for the series so far, well under one per page. I think it's also only fair to point out that Martin introduces characters at a prodigious rate and if anything could stand to whittle that ratio down somewhere close to parity.

While major POV characters don't cop it very often, appearing as a the POV character in the Prologue and Epilogue is invariably a death sentence so while it's true that Martin is a little more discerning about parcelling out doom than is sometimes made out, it's clear he wants the reader aware that (unlike ours) his world is a pretty rough place with a fair bit of violence to be had.

I don't think the series is characterised by nihilism -- there's a fair amount of Romance hanging around especially in the themes and deeper backstory. The cynical tone Martin puts across as a counterpoint to this (i.e. everytime Sandor and Sansa meet) I think leads to some of the heavier depictions of violence, which doesn't neccessarily work well in a fantasy epic where the plot is always moving on to the next location.

[Kathy]

I tend to not do re-reads, nor do I read series one after the other. Sadly, this doesn't take the sting out of purchasing a book from an author I love and having it stink....

[Wastrel]

Horza wrote: "All up it's something like 300 named character deaths for the series so far, well under one per page. I think it's also only fair to point out that Martin introduces characters at a prodigious rate..."

300 named characters - but how many people remember Khal Fogo or Andros Brax? Woth, Dobber, Medger Cerwyn, Squint, Poxy Tim? Elwood, Delp, Guncer Sunglass, Bodger, Donnel Locke, Stone Thumbs, Eon Hunter, Ser Aladale Wynch? Lots of those 300 were only named when they died or shortly before, and most of the rest are background furniture with little significance of their own (eg when a character gets killed, often they have retinue that get killed too - we may have heard their names once or twice, but they're rarely really characters in their own right).

There are probably about 10 vaguely significant casualties, out of maybe 50 vaguely significant roles. But only 2-3 actual core characters.

[K.F.]

Wastrel wrote: "There are probably about 10 vaguely significant casualties, out of maybe 50 vaguely significant roles. But only 2-3 actual core characters. "

Out of curiosity (coming from someone who has not actually read the books) which characters would you consider core?

The turn-off for the series for me is the cruelty and massive scale of death - so I'm curious from the standpoint that, to me, it seems like pretty much everyone is up for dying.

[Wastrel]

If you've not read the books, I'm not sure how meaningful an answer will be to you...

But I think that the books are 'about' three families competing for the throne. Accordingly, we start out with the POVs of Ned Stark, his wife Catelyn, and his children Arya, Sansa, Bran and Jon, and a rival Tyrion Lannister, as well as a more distant rival, Danaerys Targaryen. These are the core characters - except that later on we get POVs from Tyrion's brother Jaime, who definitely becomes a core character, and sister Cersei, who may arguably be a core character. We may also include Ned's other son, Robb, and possibly Ned's ward Theon Greyjoy.

We later get a couple of peripheral characters too - Davos Seaworth, Brienne of Tarth, and Asha Greyjoy. These may end up being core characters, but I'm not convinced they are.

So far there have been maybe five 'death events' - two actually shocking, three more minor.

The two big things are actually tricks played by Martin. In the first one, (view spoiler)[we assume this is the story of Ned (and aren't quite sure why we need POVs from all his kids), so we're shocked when he's killed. But what this means is just that it's really the story of the next generation, and the first book is the prologue (the father of the Lannisters is also killed off, and the father of Danaerys and her brother was killed off before the books begin but is continually referenced). (hide spoiler)]. Then we think we're safe, but (view spoiler)[we've foolishly assumed that Robb is one of the protagonists. Actually, he never is - he's not a POV, we rarely get much sight of what's going on in his head, and indeed he spends virtually no time on screen at all (he's a much bigger character in the TV show than in the books). It's also foreshadowed that he'll die, up to the point of a pretty clear prophetic vision of him being murdered. His mother gets killed at the same time, continuing the extinction-of-the-older-generation thread (hide spoiler)].

So everyone who 'ought' to be safe has been so far, it's just that Martin misdirects us a little early on about who the story is about. Each of these death-events is accompanied by the killing off of some minor underling characters. There is a further one of these killings-off in the second book, but because the main characters involved really are main characters Martin can only pretend to kill them, and they survive. There are also two secondary characters killed off in the first book to set up Danaerys' arc, and some of Jon's friends (though not the major ones) get killed off in a battle, because this is fantasy and you need at least one heroic-battle-against-the-odds.

--------

If anything, Martin's problem is that he's too soft on his characters. As the plot grows, there are more characters needed, but he refuses to kill them off even when the plot is begging for it, so instead we get too large a cast and a lot of tensionless cliffhangers where we know nobody's really going to die.

[Michele]

Core characters in GoT are probably Jamie, Cersei, Tyrion, Dany, Jon, Sansa, Arya, Bran, Stannis, Theon, Littlefinger, Varys. If any of these die it will be major. Though Stannis maybe I expect to die.

There are strong secondary characters too, like Brienne, Sam, Dany's crew, Margery, Theon's sister (Asha?), the Red priestess, the Onion Knight (names are escaping me). I expect several of these to die.