SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
What Else Are You Reading?
>
Wizards First Rule And Its Series
I enjoyed "Wizard's First Rule" and "Stone of Tears." They were both long but well worth reading. Great stories. I'm going to read "Blood of the Fold" this summer. Its kind of fun to watch the show and read the books--but I think the books are so much better than the show.
I've read the whole series and loved them..the show is fun, but as Jessie said not as good or in depth as the books. The show changes a lot of things, too. I'd recommend the series without a doubt.In Dreams and Magic.
Lady Ellen
www.lady-ellen.com
I really like how Kathlan and Cara fight alot in the show, i mean against the forces, they arent dasmels in distress. Are they still like that in the books? And in the second book does Cara still play a big role like in the series?
Cara's even more important in the books..and yes she and Kahlan fight side by side with Richard throughout the series against the forces of evil...and they become close friends.LE
www.lady-ellen.com
Thanks then the books it will be :)
I don't know how much fantasy you have read, or if you are only getting into it for this series, but Terry Goodkind isn't a very good author within the genre (or even otherwise for that matter).This was actually my first fantasy series after the Lord of the Rings and the Harry Potter books, but the minute I started reading others authors in the genre I realize how truly bad these books are. Still, I read the first 5 or 6 books of the series, and there is no denying that parts of them were enjoyable, but I would suggest looking elsewhere. George R.R. Martin, Steven Erickson, China Mielville and even Robert Jordan are far, far better options.
Just a friendly word of advice, though in the end reading is really such a personal choice. Try the first book and see how it goes.
I second Vir's commentlots of unnecessary stuff in Goodkind :P
and there is fantasy out there that's a lot better
Well i have ordered his first book along with two other books from different authors:The Way of Shadows: The Night Angel Trilogy: Book 1 - Brent Weeks
The Magicians' Guild (Black Magician Trilogy bk1) - Trudi Canavan
Then the first book. I thought i might be able to atleast get into one of them. I did read the first chapter of terry goodkinds first book and i did really like it :) And i cant wait to try the other two i ordered, have you heard of them.
The Brent Weeks series is excellent. As far as Goodkind, I've read the first two and enjoyed them. I have the third which I may start soon. I've been wanting to since watching the end of Legend of the Seeker.
Definitely read the Brent Weeks series. It is awesome. As for Goodkind, I highly recommend the first book. The second and third aren't that bad either. After that the series goes downhill in a hurry. Recycled plotlines, thinly veiled political rants with a minimal amount of action and minimal plot advancement all conspire to ruin what started out as a great series.
Second both TJ's suggestions. Weeks's series: a thumbs up; Goodkind thumbs down after the first couple of books.
Thanks for all the opinion im glad Weeks series is a thumbs up :) It looks like im going to be enjoying 3 different types of books. I did like his first chapter and maybe i will like the rest of goodkinds books if not then i only ordered his first book, but i was hooked on chapter 1 when i read it online (the sword of truth series)
WFR is quite good. I have yet to read romance in epic fantasy that even comes close to being believable or well done. Goodkind soars in this area. If you like romance, action and strong well developed female characters then read the SOT series. It's 11 books and there's at least 3 real stinkers (bks 5,7,8) but otherwise it's all good.
The Sword of Truth series was one of the first fantasy series I had read after LOTR and the Belgariad so it holds a special place for me. The series did get a worse as it went (not as bad as WoT though) but it picked up towards the end. The show was crap. It took some basic things from the books and made up the rest.
w.f.r. this is one of a very few books that i couldnt finish. i know goodkind has his fans so maybe its just me but i just couldnt read any more.
I read it a long time ago, but I would recommend de first 4 books. As someone else said, after that, things went bad... too many secondary plotlines that seems to be overextended to keep up with the import ones. The series have a well built world and fair enough magic system, so I'd say its worth, but the best fantasy series.Also, I concur with others about the Night Angel Series, very good books.
I actually read the first Goodkind book from this group because it was the book the group was reading the month I joined the site. I was captivated and engrossed and devoured the rest of the series. I for one could not put it down, but I can also see how this series would be one extreme or the other, you either love it or hate it.
Terry Goodkind is probably the worst author I had ever read. The Sword of Truth series is bad. BAD. It was full of inane dialogue, forgettable characters and themes copied from better books. I guess some of that is forgivable. What I really couldn't stomach was the brutal violence. Every chapter was full of vivid descriptions of rape and awful violence. In maybe book three or four (I have trouble quitting series after I start them...) I counted the number of chapters without brutal rape scenes. It was zero. I recommend you read George RR Martin or Robert Jordan instead.
I see, and there is no brutal violence in George Martin's books including rape and babies and little children being murdered violently? I suppose Martin rape and violence = good! and Goodkind rape violence = bad! lol!I've read both Jordan and Martin. Here's a brief summary of what I think of both.
Robert Jordan: I like Jordan's work for the most part but he much like Martin fails when it comes to developing well rounded characters, although Martin is more guilty of this than Jordan all things considered. Even his villians are kind of lame. I can't even say I necessarily hate them. Where Jordan soars is in the area of world building and magic system. Here he is extremely good if not brilliant. But things like suspense, drama, action and characters are not his forte as much as it is Goodkind's. That is where he excells and I'd rather have the latter than the former.
George Martin: Ridiculously overrated. It's ironic that you would say Goodkind makes forgettable characters when his characters are literally the backbone of his SOT books. Technically the same can be said for Martin, but there is a fundamental difference. Goodkind's characters drive the story. The great majority of George Martin's main characters are just there to fill up a book like an anthology. Virtually every character he creates carries on in their own little adventures almost completely independent of his overarching plot. They are irrelevant to the overall story. You can read each book and skip hundreds of pages, only reading your favorite character and it will make no difference to the main story, because Martin moves his major plot threads at a snail's pace or stalls them indefinately. Almost nothing has happened to further them since he created them in the first book. His story is ponderous and meandering.
I read WFR after a friend recommended it and I really enjoyed it. I didn't enjoy the second nearly as much. The dialog was very repetitive and overly verbose and I found myself skimming whole paragraphs or pages, which is something I typically reserve for textbooks. Even the plot was repetitious and overall it was just way too long.I enjoyed it enough that I thought I would give the third a try, but I'm not in any hurry (and even less so after reading some of the comments above). There are a lot of books that I am more excited about that simply take precedence.
I agree with Flint that Jordna creates great characters - it's for this reason that I stopped reading from midway through book eight. Nynaeve really got under my skin and she bugged me so much I couldn't read any more. If that isn't a good character I don't know what is :-)
@Flint, the difference here may be the type of storytelling involved. Martin is telling a political epic inspired by the Wars of the Roses. It's supposed to be sprawling, which in turn makes it slower. Some of the characters are dragged along by the story (eg, Arya) while others clearly drive the story (eg, Tyrion). The point is to let us see this massive story from every angle, from inside and out.
It's a storytelling style. You may dislike it, which is perfectly valid, but many people (myself included) like it just fine.
Personally, I can't stand the first Jordan/Wheel book because I think it is a blatant ripoff of Lord of the Rings, from character to setting to plot. I found the characters obvious and the plot predictable. I don't care as much about wordbuilding, and I definitely don't care about magic. So, to each his own.
Lord of the Rings, Eye of the World and many, many other fantasy books are classic heroes' journey story arcs. Tolkien wasn't the first author to use that basic story and he certainly wasn't the last.I found Wheel of Time much more entertaining and enjoyable to read than Lord of the Rings. Tolkien is just so slow and wordy! Jordan's characters were also more memorable to me.
Personally, I can't stand the first Jordan/Wheel book because I think it is a blatant ripoff of Lord of the Rings, from character to setting to plot. I found the characters obvious and the plot predictable. I don't care as much about wordbuilding, and I definitely don't care about magic. So, to each his own.Wait, what? So where in Lord of the Rings was there male & female magic, Ta'veren, Aiel, Whitecloaks, a civil war among magic users, or a character anything like Rand? The only thing the series had in common was "there was a war a long time ago and a darkness was locked up". That's standard fantasy. I can draw much. much stronger parallels between Wheel of Time and Sword of Truth then Wheel of Time and Lord of the Rings.
Watch:
Main character whose name stars with R? Yep
Lowly boy with rural background becomes king? Yep.
Magic using girlfriend/wife? Yep.
Surrounded by powerful and hot women who are magic users or fighters? Yep.
Powerful female magic user organization that doesn't trust male magic users? Yep.
Female magic users have secret evil faction that leads to the splintering of the powerful organization? Yep.
@Lara, the similarities are overwhelming.Fellowship of the Ring - Eye of the World
1. A group of average peasants
2. Meet a wizard and a warrior
3. And go on the run from the "Dark Lord"
4. Who is served by Orcs/Trollocs and Ringwraiths/Fades
5. They stop at the Prancy Pony/Stag and Lion, with a friendly fat innkeeper
6. They are attacked by Ringwraiths/Fades and hit the road again.
7. They are pursued to the edge of a river, fight the generic bad guys, and are separated, some running into the woods and some going down the river (breaking of the Fellowship).
At this point, I stopped reading WoT:EotW because it was the exact same story as FotR. Same creatures, same stock characters, same plot points. That's hundreds of pages with no originality at all. It's one thing to use the same tropes, but this is virtually the same book.
I haven't read SoT, so I cannot compare it.
Emma wrote: "Lord of the Rings, Eye of the World and many, many other fantasy books are classic heroes' journey story arcs. Tolkien wasn't the first author to use that basic story and he certainly wasn't the l..."There's nothing wrong with recycling concepts or themes, and having a variety of writing styles is refreshing. I like Tolkien, but I wouldn't want to read him every day!
Well not unless you need a good sleep aid.
Joseph wrote: Fellowship of the Ring - Eye of the World 1. A group of average peasants
2. etc
Yes, there are similarities but also differences. Off the top of my head:
WoT - Loads of strong/main women characters
LotR - a mere 3, ie Galadriel, Arwen and Eowyn.
WoT - People have relationships and sex
LotR - innocent poetry between Aragorn/Arwen, innocent flirting between Aragorn/Eowyn. No one else gets any luck!
WoT - the One Power and its taint for men but not women
LotR - can't think of equivalent
WoT vs SoT?
WoT didn't really have the dominatrix-in-disguise Mord Sith I don't think, unless they appear in the later books!
Joseph wrote: "@Lara, the similarities are overwhelming...At this point, I stopped reading WoT:EotW because it was the exact same story as FotR. Same creatures, same stock characters, same plot points. That's hundreds of pages with no originality at all. It's one thing to use the same tropes, but this is virtually the same book. "
Then you missed a hell of a lot, because it drastically changes from there. By the way, I did some quick research and Jordan had stated that the Tolkien feel in the beginning was intentional. He also borrowed from Hindu mythology, Buddhism, and War and Peace.
Lara Amber wrote: "Jordan had stated that the Tolkien feel in the beginning was intentional...Well, I don't think he copied the "feel" at all. The language and style is very different. And I'm certainly not impressed by an author who intentionally copies the characters and plot points of an entire novel. I don't see how that is artistically defensible.
Weenie wrote: "Yes, there are similarities but also differences. Off the top of my head"I'm sure there are countless differences, but that doesn't excuse the huge number of similarities. I believe there is a limit to how many things you can borrow or steal before you're just being lazy and dishonest.
Joseph wrote: "but that doesn't excuse the huge number of similarities." Lol, if people thought that way, why even bother reading any books at all that were not the original or forerunners of a particular subject/genre?
All murder/mystery books copied from Agatha Christie... You know someone got murdered, someone will investigate, mystery will be solved - same old, same old, all lazy and copying from the grand mistress of crime novels? Damn Stieg Larsson for stealing her ideas and the millions of readers oblivious to this!
Young normal person who ends up with 'powers'or a particular destiny - copied from?? All you new authors out there, just stop writing cos it's all been done before, don't be lazy, go and think of something else. How about an old person who discovers powers? No, that's my idea, don't steal it! ;-)
I can't even remember what my point was but I think I'm trying to say that similarities are often unavoidable and whilst the books we're comparing have similarities, they also have so many differences and are thus not the same.
Weenie wrote: "Lol, if people thought that way, why even bother reading any books at all that were not the original or forerunners of a..."I think there is a huge difference between writing in the same style, or the same genre, or with the same theme, and writing a story that is copied point by point (deliberately, according to Lara Amber) from another work.
A quest to defeat the Dark Lord? Fine. The exact same set of heroes, stock characters, monsters, settings, and plot points in the same chronological order? Not fine.
Joseph wrote: "The exact same set of heroes, stock characters, monsters, settings, and plot points in the same chronological order? Not fine." Potatoes/tomatoes... 12 books later with a huge following of readers who obviously think it's 'fine', what's the betting that most of those have also read Tolkien?
Weenie wrote: "Potatoes/tomatoes... 12 books later with a huge fo..."You really want to trust a majority ruling on whether plagiarism and laziness is okay? That just paves the way for a future of clones, of less innovation and creativity, not more. No thanks.
Lol, I dunno about you but I'm here on GoodReads trusting a majority to give me ideas and advice on what books to read...maybe you're in the wrong place - trust no one! Or perhaps I've missed the Tolkien lawsuit on the Jordan estate re nicking ideas?
Weenie wrote: "WoT didn't really have the dominatrix-in-disguise Mord Sith I don't think, unless they appear in the later books!"There was the whole damane thing with the Seanchan. They weren't as much into the torture aspect of it, but the collars and controlling the wearer through magic was there.
Weenie wrote: "Lol, I dunno about you but I'm here on GoodReads trusting a majority to give me ideas and advice on what books to read...maybe you're in the wrong place - trust no one! Or perhaps I've missed the T..."I'm not here to let majority opinion tell me what to read. I'm here to make friends, engage in thoughtful debates, and learn about new books I might like.
I'd sooner trust the opinion of one person with similar tastes than a thousand random strangers.
For example, I like "hard" science fiction. Most people don't. But I'm not going to let "most people" tell me that Star Wars is "better" than Accelerando.
Joseph wrote: "I'm not here to let majority opinion tell me what to read." I don't think anyone is telling anyone what to read, majority or not - you have the right to choose!
If someone in this group (and yes, despite being random strangers, we're all in here because we're supposedly likeminded individuals who like sci-fi and fantasy so there is a common if tenuous link, given all the different types of sci-fi/fantasy out there) suggests that such and such a book is good, then I'll check it out and see if I want to read it, add it to my to-read list maybe.
I guess we're just using GoodReads for different reasons - just as well that it caters for us all then!
What was the topic again??
Oh yeah - Eye of the World/WoT is not the same as Fellowship of the Ring/LoTR! :-)
Weenie wrote: "What was the topic again?? Clearly, they're all the same. They all have the word "of" in the title!
I think there is a huge difference between writing in the same style, or the same genre, or with the same theme, and writing a story that is copied point by point (deliberately, according to Lara Amber) from another work. A quest to defeat the Dark Lord? Fine. The exact same set of heroes, stock characters, monsters, settings, and plot points in the same chronological order? Not fine.
Honestly you keep saying it was the same as Tolkien, but then you also admit that you never read any more of the series, and it sounds like you didn't even finish the first book. So when the people who have read the whole series tells you the similarity was only in the first part of the first book and then sharply deviates from there (as the characters leave their idyllic and rather sheltered hometown), you might want to listen.
It's like you watched the Wizard of Oz and complained about how the whole thing is in sepia and the rest of us are going "uh, only the beginning".
And it wasn't point by point or the same stock of characters (no dwarves, no hobbits, no elves, talking trees, etc), same plot (no object to destroy or grand agreement to form a group, no object slowly driving anyone mad or whispering about power), etc. It was less a quest to defeat a dark lord and more "holy crap, somebody wants to kill us, run!"
Unless you want to claim that Frodo was proclaimed the fulfillment of several prophecies, started several wars, ended up ruler of most of the known world with three "wives", and is a powerful magic wielder that everyone is worried will go mad?
Lara Amber wrote: "you also admit that you never read any more of the series, and it sounds like you didn't even finish the first book"That's exactly right, I read several hundred pages of the first book, found it grossly derivative of Tolkien's FotR and stopped reading. And you yourself just admitted that, yes, it is very similar.
How many hundreds of pages, or complete volumes of a series, does a reader have to endure before they are allowed to form the opinion: "I don't like this because of X"? It's an opinion of a book, not an indictment of your character.
If you had read my original comment more carefully, I think you'd find it contains no errors. The plot points I list are identical. The types of characters (regardless of race) are identical. The types of monsters are identical. I consider that to be too many "identicals" for one book.
And I haven't made any claims about the rest of the series. Please stop throwing strawman arguments at me.
I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion.That said, I'd like to touch on something that was brought up a little earlier...
Well, I don't think he copied the "feel" at all. The language and style is very different. And I'm certainly not impressed by an author who intentionally copies the characters and plot points of an entire novel. I don't see how that is artistically defensible.
It may not be artistically, defensible, but it has been happening since Homer's epics were penned. Recently, I can think of three HUGE successes that built on previously established worlds: A) Stephanie Meyer's Twilight (which obviously tapped into the void left by Joss Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Slayer ; Avatar , which (since you're a hard sci-fi reader, you might recognize as a rip-off of of Poul Anderson's Don't call Me Joe ; and J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter, which blatantly ripped off Ursula K. Le Guin's A Wizard of Earthsea , Nancy K. Stouffer's The Legend of Rah and the Muggles -- whose hero was Larry Potter--Jane Yolen's Wizard's Hall ; Neil Gaiman’s comic book character Tim Hunter of Books of Magic .
Tolkien, who you arduously defend, lifted much of his Middle Earth from common tropes in Germanic mythologies and Homer's epics. He researched etomologies of words for the OED, for God's sake, and he used much of that research for world-building--more so than character building. Jordan and Goodkind have both profited from his world building, but Fantasy has profited far more by the twists and characterizations these two men have propagated.
Jordan intentionally delved into the precepts of Tolkien because there was a market for it. Familiarity comforts readers, and as long as the expansion of the stories go in different directions, and use characters with different perspectives, it becomes new. Jordan also wrote historicals and Conan pastiches, so he was no stranger to extrapolation. He was even an advisor on Conan: The Destroyer--which it the truest (to date) version of Conan, and employed imagery mimicking Frank Frazetta's depictions.
I also believe it would be impossible to find a fantasy story (perhaps even C. S. Lewis's work, and he workshopped with Tolkien) that cannot be paralleled to Professor Tolkien's work.
Oh, and I just have to point one thing out, that struck me like a fist:
I found the characters obvious and the plot predictable. I don't care as much about wordbuilding, and I So, to each his own.
If you "don't care as much about worldbuilding" and "definitely don't care about magic." aren't you really just trolling? How can a "fantasy" reader not care about magic? That is the core of fantasy. Without magic (as I have been told by a few editors) it's Historical or just Fiction, because it could have happened in the real world--with the caveat of mythology or monsters (which would be also all old, tired tropes).
ART, however, is in the eye of the beholder (as cliche as that is). Not everyone reads (or thinks) on a multi-syllabic level. Not everyone cares about iambic rhythms, allegory, allusion or original metaphor. Did Michelangelo copy Da Vinci, because they used the same methods of painting? They Both painted men in religious scenes, but wasn't it their styles that made them different? Was Michelangelo just a copy of Bernini? They were both passionate and talented sculptors, and used the same tools in the same ways. Wasn't it their approach to the human form, and the perspectives from which they'd be viewed, that gave them originality.Or are you more familiar with Francisco Goya? He didn't possess the same talent for duplication realistic proportion, but his concepts were wild and rebellious. Or Mozart and Beethoven...didn't they both write waltzes and sonatas and grand operas with familiar themes? Are they any less for it?
Rich wrote: "I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion..."The fact that my opinions differ from yours does not make me a "troll". I have a degree in literature, I am a professional writer and editor, and I care passionately about literature, writing, education, and literacy.
I agree that everything in art is similar to something else in art. Art inspires art, and I believe that is a Good Thing. But in my opinion, there is a significant difference between being inspired by ideas or images and just copying a plot outline.
I have not "defended" Tolkien, merely pointed out that he wrote a novel and then forty years later Jordan wrote another novel that I feel is "too" similar to warrant my respect.
I love fantasy stories for their human elements. The fantasy genre has many rich characters and social commentaries, allowing us to explore humanity through older societies. The fact that these societies are interwoven with magic or mythical elements, to me, is not the most interesting thing about them.
For example, I really like Rothfuss's The Name of the Wind. It is full of magic, but the parts that I remember and enjoy are the personal tragedies and suffering, the personal growth and successes, the triumphs and joys. The human, not the magical.
I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph. As I have already stated previously, creativity and innovation are incredibly precious and valuable. But to bring us full circle, I personally don't see much creativity when I compare Eye of the World to Fellowship of the Ring. (And other folks here, including those arguing with me, have agreed with that sentiment.)
You say art is in the eye of the beholder. Well, I have two good eyes and I have caveated all of my statements with "I believe" and "In my opinion." I have not attacked anyone for their opinions, except maybe Jordan. I respect everyone's right to have and express their opinions. Please feel free to reciprocate.
@ Flint I think Emma was not so much complaining about the rape and violence being included in Goodkinds work I think she had a problem with the frequency with which it occurred. @ Joseph for someone coming out and talking about feel and writing style I think you need to watch your own word choices. I've been on here complaining that I have issues with several of these authors but I find it best to avoid the use of inflammatory words while discussing them. Words such as: blatant ripoff, no originality at all, virtually the same book, all serve to inflame.
You are indeed entitled to your opinion but please express it in a manner that is respectful to others who do not share your opinion. You claim ""I don't like this because of X"? It's an opinion of a book, not an indictment of your character. " Yet, how is "blatant ripoff" not an indictment of Robert Jordan's personal character.
As a someone with a degree in literature you should be capable of using the english language in a manner is slightly more tactful.
As a someone with a degree in literature you should be capable of using the english language in a manner is slightly more tactful. So it's not just me reading it that way. I thought I was being overly touchy. (I enjoy Jordan, but it's not like I worship at his feet, I reserve that for Joss Whedon.)
Phew, well Rich put it far more eloquently than I ever could and Tj wrapped it up quite nicely.What's next for discussion?
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Omen Machine (other topics)The Omen Machine (other topics)
The Sword of Shannara (other topics)
Im really new here and so i don't understand alot of what to do, so im sorry if im in the wrong section.
I recently watched The Legend Of The Seeker, but wanted more and i was wondering would anyone recommend the books? And its series? Im looking for a real good fantasy book. I really enjoy fantasymagic romance, etc. I have read Twilight Books and The Harry Potters, and others i cant really remeber. Im into all SciFi and Fantasy too.
Is it memorable?
Thank you for any help.
- NA