Terry Brooks or George RR Martin? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

warty goblin

2010-01-20, 01:37 AM

I tried to read the first Shannara book, I really did. Then I came to the inescapable conclusion that it was Lord of the Rings, except with everything I liked about Tolkien removed and replaced with seriously mediocre run of the mill fantasy. This lead me to conclude that Tolkien was not only a reliable source for LOTR style plot, but also a better one.

A Song of Ice and Fire however grabbed me from, oh, page six maybe. There's some familiar stuff in there, but a lot that isn't, and the characterizations are very well done.

I would recommend ASoIaF to anybody who does not object to violence that is actually disturbing and affects main characters in serious ways (it isn't just 'oh cool fightscenes') and isn't offended by the occasional bit of fairly explicit sex. I really wouldn't recommend Shannara to anybody.

Ozreth

2010-01-20, 02:05 AM

Connington

2010-01-20, 04:28 AM

Well, this is looking redundant now, but...

Terry Brook's books are kind of what you might call prototypical fantasy. The core is a vague Tolkien homage, but it's filled with lots of stuff the author through in because it was cool. And of course, the prose is more down to earth than Tolkien. Not bad in itself, but a little forgettable.

A Song of Ice And Fire is like the Firefly of the fantasy aisle. As soon as you mention it, everyone stampedes to tell you how good it is. And not without reason. I could go into character depth, awesome scenes, but you get the point.

It focuses more on court intrigue than your standard fantasy novel, although there are plenty of chapters out of that focus. Word of warning: GRRM is a cynical, cynical man. Ever stumbled into a thread where people talk about how unrealistically clean and wealthy a standard D&D setting is? Well, they can't complain too much here. Martin is fond of cutting bits off of his characters that other authors would definitely leave on, and even more fun of just killing off his main characters and replacing them. I unfortunately checked out the Wiki articles prior to reading, and I actually thought someone had been through on a very in depth vandalism streak.

Satyr

2010-01-20, 04:42 AM

I don't think that Martin is a cynic. Quite the opposite. His books' morality are more realistic than the mind-crushingly stupid black and white morals which are all too common in fantasy literature, but that doesn't make him cynical. It is very obvious that his sympathies are usually with the nice guys, but the world usually doesn't care if you are a nice person. That's not cynical. That's a sad but very accurate observance.
And speaking from a historian persepctive: When compared to a real war, Martin's descriptions are still on the euphemistic side. Not as far as many other authors, but compared to say, the 30 years war* it is not really that dark. People just don't have the comparisons.
I really like the Song of Ice and Fire. Yes, it is painful at some times, but hey, if you wouldn't care for the protagonists the author would do something wrong.

*: I know, the War of the Roses would be a more accurate comparison, but I am a lot less intimate with British history than with the German.

Grimlock

2010-01-20, 04:47 AM

George RR Martin everytime!
I read the Shannara books and they're okay, but nothing more than that. Whereas ASoIaF is superb in its plotting and characterisation...although not great on massive gaps between books! grrrrrrr

thubby

2010-01-20, 05:39 AM

after two books of build up, and little progress i cared about, i gave up on martin. say what you will, but i spent most of my time waiting for it to roll back around to jon, arya, or bran.

Grimlock

2010-01-20, 05:44 AM

after two books of build up, and little progress i cared about, i gave up on martin. say what you will, but i spent most of my time waiting for it to roll back around to jon, arya, or bran.

What about Tyrion? The best character in the books, followed closely by Jon! Also I think Martin does a very good job of creating well rounded characters, eg Jaime and his character arc makes him interesting rather than just a baddie, (trying not to give anything away), as with Sandor Clegaine (sp?)

Lord of the Helms

2010-01-20, 06:29 AM

It focuses more on court intrigue than your standard fantasy novel, although there are plenty of chapters out of that focus. Word of warning: GRRM is a cynical, cynical man. Ever stumbled into a thread where people talk about how unrealistically clean and wealthy a standard D&D setting is? Well, they can't complain too much here. Martin is fond of cutting bits off of his characters that other authors would definitely leave on, and even more fun of just killing off his main characters and replacing them. I unfortunately checked out the Wiki articles prior to reading, and I actually thought someone had been through on a very in depth vandalism streak.

This one requires seconding. Martin is generally a good author with decent plotting and mostly good characterizations in most characters, with a handful of exceptions (half of his villains will be surprisingly deep and multilayered, the other half are cartoonish caricatures of the hypothetical offspring of Vlad the Impaler, Caligula and Ivan the Terrible as described in the most maddening accounts by their worst enemies, with a bit of Cruella de Ville thrown in. Oh, and also Darkstar, who just plain sucks). His world, however, is bleak and cynical indeed, a main theme being that if you are a decent, upright, sympathetic human being, you will get screwed over; there is some balance in that if you are a bastard and monster, you have a chance of getting screwed over if you aren't sufficiently good at it. Some like it more, some less; the main issue I noticed is that somewhere between books 3 and 4, I kinda stopped caring about almost all characters, as I got kind of numbed off by previous deaths and other horrible fates and mostly just started thinking "meh, another one down". Mostly, though, I'd recommend abstaining from the series until its conclusion comes into sight, because otherwise the massive wait between the books, while a lot of the character plotlines tend to end with cliffhangers or at least huge question marks and at the same time the hypothetical main plot is obviously far from developing (without spoiling all too much, there is a great menace that rears its head in the prologue of the very first book and has yet to make anything even approaching a major move as of book 4, a few hints of offscreen actions aside) and not much in the way of an end in sight makes it rather unsatisfying.

That said, if you don't mind the cynicism too much and aren't distraught by long waits, it should definitely be worth a try.

On the other hand, the constant delays and comments of the author on his progress provide impressive comedy on their own; nowadays I mostly chuckle at it, and occasionally laugh out loud, like when I saw this (scroll down to the release date...):
http://www.amazon.de/Dance-Dragons-Song-Ice-Fire/dp/0739375970/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books-intl-de&qid=1263987171&sr=8-4

Asheram

2010-01-20, 07:05 AM

Satyr

2010-01-20, 07:25 AM

Lord of Rapture

2010-01-20, 07:55 AM

Satyr, you need to remember that when it comes to history, most people are idiots with only a tenuous grasp at best.

OverdrivePrime

2010-01-20, 08:02 AM

Oh man, I can't even understand how this is a question. A couple friends recommended the Shannara series to me and I couldn't even make it past the second book - it's all so trite. If I want to hear a mundane and lifeless fantasy story, I'll play in my 16 year old cousin's D&D game.

I dunno, maybe I would have liked Terry Brooks when I was in middle school or early high school, but as an adult, I find his work almost laughably bad.

And besides, George R.R. Martin's work is mind-blowingly awesome. Dive In!

bosssmiley

2010-01-20, 08:04 AM

Neither.

Tad Williams (Memory, Sorrow and Thorn, Otherland) and David Gemmell (Drenai Saga, others) did better down-and-dirty fantasy than The Mountain That Misses Deadlines. And Terry Brooks is the man responsible for making post-70s fantasy such a hell of interminable multi-volume coffee klatch sagas (Feist, Jordan, McCaffrey, Eddings, Weis&Hickman, Nix, Paolini, Lackey).

Read Steven Brust (the Vlad Taltos series) or Karl Edward Wagner.

Eldariel

2010-01-20, 08:44 AM

I'd give Martin the mantle of "best fantasy author alive". So yeah, my suggestion is obvious.

Dacia Brabant

2010-01-20, 08:55 AM

Seriously, if you think that Martin's books are cynical or particularly bleak, you should watch more news.
I am always surpised of this "it is all so terrible" comment about Westeros. Yes, it is not up to the hopelessly naive and euphemistic representations of issues like war that are common fantasy literature, but does that means it is cynical? Westeros is still a nicer place to live than any real world country during a medieval or early modern war. Does that mean that any textbook about the crusades or the 30 Years War is "cynical" by default because it describes war crimes?
Yes, in comparison to other fantasy authors, Martin is a bit harsh. Compared to the historical equivalent of his world, he is a romanticist.

I think what you're missing is that history, unlike fiction and especially fantasy, is not a narrative. Some historians may try to create narratives out of "world-historical individuals," but this is at best bad research and at worst deliberate whitewashing and/or propaganda. So when I read honest historical accounts of human conflict I'm expecting the worst, albeit presented in a depersonalized manner; what I'm not expecting is a drama with protagonists and antagonists I come to know personally through their characterization. That's what I expect from good fiction, and if these characters continually get the treatment in the worst sorts of ways, well it's not hard to see how some readers would start to feel numbed by it all and therefore conclude that the author is disrespectful of his characters and of his readers' attachments to them.

This isn't to say that I think Martin is a bad writer, not at all. What I'm saying is that presenting a narrative the way he sometimes does, through the detached, remorseless lens of history, can be jarring even if one is expecting the "grimdark." Also it seems to me that many readers of this genre are teenagers to early twenties, who tend to get emotionally attached and involved more easily and so react more strongly to this sort of writing, though that's a generalization and doesn't hold for everyone.

Satyr

2010-01-20, 09:18 AM

No, but reality is a very solid benchmark. Whenever something is lighter and friendlier than the comparable real events, it is hardly cynical. If you present the things as worse as they are in reality, or using the real events inappropriately, this is another case.
And the assumption that every character is just constantly suffering is neither correct (there are always phases were people seem to be amost happy) nor are they only the poor victims of unfortunate circumstances; at least two characters are just reaping what they sowed.
Daenaris for example... gets better with every single book. Jon also suffers from only minor drawbacks over the time (okay, his family not so much). Davos is very similar. And Jaime actually works towards his redemption.
And Martin treats his comparatively realistic setting not as a shocking special effect gimmick, but he deals with it in a very plausible way; and much of the bad things that happens to the protagonists are terribly exagerated.

warty goblin

2010-01-20, 10:02 AM

This one requires seconding. Martin is generally a good author with decent plotting and mostly good characterizations in most characters, with a handful of exceptions (half of his villains will be surprisingly deep and multilayered, the other half are cartoonish caricatures of the hypothetical offspring of Vlad the Impaler, Caligula and Ivan the Terrible as described in the most maddening accounts by their worst enemies, with a bit of Cruella de Ville thrown in. Oh, and also Darkstar, who just plain sucks). His world, however, is bleak and cynical indeed, a main theme being that if you are a decent, upright, sympathetic human being, you will get screwed over; there is some balance in that if you are a bastard and monster, you have a chance of getting screwed over if you aren't sufficiently good at it. Some like it more, some less; the main issue I noticed is that somewhere between books 3 and 4, I kinda stopped caring about almost all characters, as I got kind of numbed off by previous deaths and other horrible fates and mostly just started thinking "meh, another one down".

I've read a lot of Martin (ASoIaF, Dreamsongs volumes 1 and 2, Fevre Dream, The Armaggedon Rag, Dying of the Light, Hunter's Run), and I'm pretty sure he's not that cynical. His Thousand Worlds stuff is, as a rule (and excepting the corpse stories) quite romantic stuff.

Nor would I say that a major theme of ASoIaF is that good people are screwed over. I'd say a more accurate assesement is that terrible, terrible things happen to people during a war, no matter their morality. Sometimes being an amoral scumbag helps one survive, and sometimes it doesn't (look at, say, Vargo Hoat or Mirrah Maz Dhur). I honestly find the change from the standard fantasy plot where war is something bad that happens to minor characters so the heroes can go be heroic to be quite refreshing. Painful to read, but refreshing.

Grimlock

2010-01-20, 10:42 AM

I'd say that you should skip both and go for Steven Erikson. "A tale of the Malazan book of the fallen" is one of the best series you'll ever read for as long as you have the mind to keep track of the +20 'main' characters. :smallbiggrin:

It's genious.

I love these books too! Probably my favourite, even above Martin! I like the Esslemont additions to the series too!

I like David Gemmell, but I find his books a bit 'samey' as his heroes are all very similar, having said that, he does write them very well. Interestingly, he collected, (before he died obviously), antique weaponry and would go out into his garden and try out some of the moves he was writing about to see if they were possible, especially when writing the Druss books and trying to write axe v sword fights! That rocks!

chiasaur11

2010-01-20, 10:57 AM

I'd give Martin the mantle of "best fantasy author alive". So yeah, my suggestion is obvious.

I'd consider that debatable with Pratchett still alive.

Sure, it's often comedic fantasy...

pita

2010-01-20, 11:10 AM

I'd consider that debatable with Pratchett still alive.

Sure, it's often comedic fantasy...

I actually prefer Gaiman to Pratchett. Less on the quantity (Pratchett is the most prolific author who consistently releases good stuff as well), but as far as quality goes, The Doll's House and American Gods and The Wake all rate very highly on my list of favorite novels. Yes, I consider graphic novels to be novels. And Smoke And Mirrors is amazing, but it's an anthology, so I don't know how to consider it.
As far as the other suggestions for this thread goes:
I've never read Brooks, but I've heard he's bad.
Terry Pratchett is amazingly funny, and 90% of his books are great. You just have to either avoid or slog through the other 10%. Which books are in the 10% is generally debatable, although the only book I've found a consensus on is "Equal Rites". My favorite book is Reaper Man, though my suggestion is to read them in the order they came out. Terry's development as an author is very clear. And The Color Of Magic movie is pretty good, though Hogfather was boring. Except for Marc Warren.
Stephen Erikson gives a new definition for Epic. Every book has a world-shattering villain who is believable. Every protagonist is completely awesome. Everything is awesome. If the books are ever adapted to a movie, I have no doubt Michael Bay will direct. However, despite the awesomeness, it's actually a pretty realistic story compared to the normal fantasy fare. The characters are realistic, and I like Paran (the lead protagonist, although it's very much an ensemble story). The plot is convoluted to an enormous degree, however, and it's very hard to get through. If you can, I think it's worth it, but I've met very few people who liked it. Me and a childhood friend have been trying to finish the series, I'm on Book 4 and he's on Book 3 and none of us have been advancing. Gardens of the Moon is the first book.
Robin Hobb wasn't recommended in this thread, but I really love her books. Mostly because of a human element that beats any other author I've read. She obviously cares about her characters. Though there's little main-character death, and good guys always win, even the smaller losses feel very real with her. Her writing is very powerful, and her world building is pretty amazing. Some, however, feel her characters are way too over-emotional, and whiny. Considering she writes teenagers, it makes sense, and she's the only author who's written teenagers well, IMO. Some, like Rowling, overshoot and create teenagers who should be diagnosed clinically retarded, while others, like Card, create teenagers who should be diagnosed as sociopaths, with how little they feel. I like her. I'd recommend trying the Assassin trilogy first.
George R R Martin is god. He's written very little that I didn't like.

lostlittlebear

2010-01-20, 11:18 AM

@pita: Seconded. I love Gaiman's work.

Glen Cook's Black Company series is much like aSoIaF in tone and scope, I'd recommend it to George R R Martin's fans. I liked Garth Nix's Sabriel books too, though Gaiman is still my favourite fantasy author.

Gah, so many fantasy authors I like - Michael Moorcock, Dan Simmons (though he's more sci-fi I guess), Stephen King, Robert Jordan, Brandon Sanderson, CS Lewis, JRR Tolkien... and I could go on and on [/fantasyfanboy]

Closet_Skeleton

2010-01-20, 11:21 AM

Nobody in ASoIaF got punished by the narrative for being good people, just for making terible mistakes. The most succesful people are the ones who don't go around pissing people off.

In some ways it's less cynical, since in most fantasy series kitten eaters need the outside force of a hero to despose of them, while in ASoIaF those people often get killed when their own minions have enough of them.

FoE

2010-01-20, 11:39 AM

1) Brooks is more high fantasy than Martin. The Shannara series uses the Standard Fantasy Setting (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StandardFantasySetting) with a few differences, such as disposing with the whole 'dwarves live underground' thing. There are a ton of magical beasties.

Martin's series has dire wolves, dragons, wights, giants ... and that's about it. Most of his characters are human.

2) Magic in Martin's series tends to be a bit more about curses and blood magic. Brooks' wizards shoot fire from their fingertips.

3) Evil can be defeated in the Shannara series, but no matter how many Big Bads go down, things never get better. (This is partly why I jumped ship around the Voyage of the Jerle Shannara, along with the decline in writing quality. See below.)

In Martin's series, everyone is screwed from the get-go, and you're basically reading on to see how everybody's going to die.

4) Bad things happen to good people in the Shannara series, but the most they'll do is kill someone. Martin's villains will rape, torture, abuse children, etc. Also, half of his villains are also his heroes.

5) Brooks' Shannara series declines in quality as it goes on. If you want to read it, I suggest stopping once you finished either The Wishsong of Shannara or The Talismans of Shannara. (Personally, I think the high point is the Elfstone of Shannara for its high Demon content.) :smalltongue:

Martin's series generally remains good throughout, but let's face it, A Song of Ice and Fire is never getting finished. Sorry, fanboys.

In all, I would suggest Brooks as a good 'starter' fantasy author, if you haven't read much else.

valadil

2010-01-20, 11:41 AM

GRRM is my favorite author, with Neal Stephenson in a close second. I haven't read Terry Brooks so I can't do a fair comparison.

Buuuuut, A Song of Ice and Fire changed how I view fantasy. I'm no longer interested in taking a guided tour through someone's imagination. ASoIaF is about people and the intrigue between them. Yeah there's some fantasy going on in the background, but that's not the focus of the series. That only makes it stand out from all the Tolkien derivatives out there.

I can't promise that you'll like GRRM. Read some Amazon reviews and you'll see there's a lot of hate (mostly from people who want fantasy to be a safe idyllic place to escape to, and I don't mean that in a condescending way) among the glowing reviews. I still think everyone should try this series.

pita

2010-01-20, 12:30 PM

Martin's series generally remains good throughout, but let's face it, A Song of Ice and Fire is never getting finished. Sorry, fanboys.
This attitude annoys me.
A person who dies of natural causes, will, on average, die when he's 90. There's small variation, but that's the general rule of thumb.
George R R Martin is 60. Many authors have lived far beyond that.
Even if he takes 5 years to finish every other book in the series, he'll finish it.
Yes, there's always the chance that he'll "Pull a Robert Jordan", but Robert Jordan had an illness that killed him. Martin doesn't have that weakness.
Of course, he could get hit by a bus. Or his plane could crash. Or he could become violently ill.
But in my opinion, ASOIAF is more likely to be finished than, say, Order of the Stick.

Mewtarthio

2010-01-20, 12:50 PM

This attitude annoys me.
A person who dies of natural causes, will, on average, die when he's 90. There's small variation, but that's the general rule of thumb.

:smallconfused: Japan has the highest life expectancy in the world, and it only gets to 82. 90 is actually really old. And it's not like GRRM is the epitome of health...

Elder Tsofu

2010-01-20, 12:52 PM

This attitude annoys me.
A person who dies of natural causes, will, on average, die when he's 90.

Actually it is just above 60. (in the world)

Drakyn

2010-01-20, 12:59 PM

Actually it is just above 60. (in the world)

For NATURAL CAUSES, or just average life length in general?

thubby

2010-01-20, 01:01 PM

What about Tyrion? The best character in the books, followed closely by Jon! Also I think Martin does a very good job of creating well rounded characters, eg Jaime and his character arc makes him interesting rather than just a baddie, (trying not to give anything away), as with Sandor Clegaine (sp?)

i didn't like tyrion's personality, even if cool things did happen with him around. I spent the entire first book thinking "why do I care? why am I in his head of all people?", and the second book wanting to wash my hands after crawling around in his slimy head.

i do agree his characters are well made, but they're generally ill used:

catelyn has her story but is usually a shell to act as the second person narrator for robb and everything going on around him (i would have liked to get in his head). and ed before *ahem*
dany is the walking sex appeal of the book. for all the intrigue in her life, martin goes "and now a sex scene" whenever we look in on her
sansa just makes me want to hurt her. both of the first books could have been written with her as a background character, and i wouldn't have noticed.
the ones i did care about (in order, arya, jon, bran) always shift to another character when things get interesting, like a commercial right before the big fight, only they skip the fight :smallfurious:
i would love to love the series, because there is so much good stuff there, but it's put together poorly and tied down with lots of excess junk.

pita

2010-01-20, 01:17 PM

:smallconfused: Japan has the highest life expectancy in the world, and it only gets to 82. 90 is actually really old. And it's not like GRRM is the epitome of health...

Natural causes, I said. I ruled out illnesses, car accidents, and other stuff like that.

Mr. Scaly

2010-01-20, 01:21 PM

You know, this is making me want to dig out my old copy of Sword of Shannara and see how well it stacks up now that older and (theoretically) more mature.

I think that the biggest problem with ASOIAF is that no matter what happens, it's just bad guys and villains kicking the world around. It may very well be realistic, but the good guys always get screwed over and things just look like they're going to get worse. If you like that thing, go for it. I prefer my endings a little more upbeat.

Muz

2010-01-20, 01:33 PM

Sword of Shannara really does read as a reimagining of the LOTR story. This is actually intentional, as the editor who read Brooks' manuscript was looking for just that: Something to give to all the fans of LOTR in the 1970s who were hungry for more. Fantasy publishing at that time wasn't nearly big as it is now, and Lester del Rey wanted something to hook the existing audience ("You liked Lord of the Rings? Here's something similarly flavored!") and show there was a market for other fantasy books as well. (Or at least see IF there was.) It could be argued that this is one element of why there are so many fantasy books published today, akin to how Star Wars led to the prolification of the modern blockbuster. (Whether that's a good or bad thing is a matter of opinion, of course.)

That said, Elfstones is more original, more interesting, more readable, and being a second book, better written. (Actually it's his "second and a half" book if you count the fact that he had it half-written, tossed the majority of his first draft out, and started over.) :smallwink:

Satyr

2010-01-20, 01:47 PM

I think that the biggest problem with ASOIAF is that no matter what happens, it's just bad guys and villains kicking the world around. It may very well be realistic, but the good guys always get screwed over and things just look like they're going to get worse. If you like that thing, go for it. I prefer my endings a little more upbeat.

That's just not true. First of all, everybody may die, including both the main characters and support characters - no matter if they are really nice, or complete jerks. I don't want to spoil here a lot, but at least some of the bad guys are just as screwed as the nice ones.
And secondly, not everybody suffers all the time. Yes, something bad happens to everybody, but that is life. But at least Jon and Dany get a continuous improvement of their lot, with only minor drawbacks.

Mewtarthio

2010-01-20, 01:56 PM

Natural causes, I said. I ruled out illnesses, car accidents, and other stuff like that.

Ah, yes. I'd forgotten how Martin was immune to car accidents and other "unnatural" deaths. Like illnesses. :smalltongue:

Elder Tsofu

2010-01-20, 01:57 PM

Natural causes, I said. I ruled out illnesses, car accidents, and other stuff like that.

Illness is one of the more "natural" causes I can think of. :smalltongue:
It is quite uncommon to die from something else. (Especially for the old)

But don't be worried, by your definition he will most probably die by unnatural causes anyway. :smalltongue:

@^ Damn you. :smalltongue:

Mr. Scaly

2010-01-20, 01:59 PM

That's just not true. First of all, everybody may die, including both the main characters and support characters - no matter if they are really nice, or complete jerks. I don't want to spoil here a lot, but at least some of the bad guys are just as screwed as the nice ones.
And secondly, not everybody suffers all the time. Yes, something bad happens to everybody, but that is life. But at least Jon and Dany get a continuous improvement of their lot, with only minor drawbacks.

To the first point, I'd say that yes everybody may die but in the case of the bad guys there's always more out there to take their place while the number of decent main and supporting characters seems to be dwindling (likewise, not to give anything away). And second, not they don't suffer all the time. You're right about that. But by the end of every book everyone seems to be in a position further down from where they started. Even Jon and Dany who have the 'happiest' story lines so far. Jon didn't want his latest plot twist at all. And Dany is stuck in a rut.

mallorean_thug

2010-01-20, 02:00 PM

If all you're going to offer is the dichotomy between these two authors, I'll have to grudgingly go with Martin. As a note, I have read all of Martin's Song of Ice and Fire (so far), and I got through to the second book of the High Druid of Shannara trilogy for Brooks. A breakdown by author:

Terry Brooks is one of the remaining pillars of the late 80s early 90s glut of "High Fantasy". He was part of the set of authors that became successful making a buck off of D&D settings or Tolkein. That, while not necessarily a bad thing, means that his world feel highly derivative and I would now categorize it as "gateway" fantasy, decent to introduce somebody to the genre but not much else. Sword of Shannara, however, is not a re imagining of LoTR, it simply is LoTR with different character names, and will leave you wondering how he did not get sued. Elfstones was basically, "What if I added demons!!1!?", and Wishsong was a mashup of those first two. His next forray into Shannara, Heritage of Shannara, I would consider to be his best works, as he develops his setting and sets it farther apart from the typical fantasy setting while actually having a full story arc in mind from the beginning. After that though, you just don't want to read. The setting gets (slightly) better, but the writing gets much worse. I would have maybe recommended him 5 years ago, but I was younger then, and the genre has really gotten a lot better in the last couple years.

George R.R. Martin is one of the authors, that in reaction to the above, decided that fantasy should be darker and edgier. His only fantasy series so far, A Song of Fire and Ice, currently stands at 4 books of a probable 7. He is rather adept at juggling multiple points of view, defying reader expectations (until they wise up to his methods), and portraying various shades of grey. Note, however, that this takes place in a very Low fantasy setting with magic rarely appearing, and rather ambiguous when it does appear. He is one of my favorite fantasy authors, BUT I don't normally recommend him to newer readers because of one thing . . . his book series is unfinished and while it will eventually finish, that does not seem to be anytime soon. Moreover, it seems like he is having a great deal of difficulty figuring out how to move forward so I am not completely confident in his ability to end his series. If you're willing to wait though, completely recommended. (just don't visit his blog, if you're impatient. It won't help)

If you're looking for good fantasy, look more towards the fresh faces of the genre. They've learned from their predecessors mistakes (mainly sprawling book series that never end) and have really brought new light to the genre. In particular, I would recommend R. Scott Bakker, Scott Lynch, Joe Abercrombie, and Brandon Sanderson. Look them up. (and yes I know I didn't mention Rothfuss, but he seems to have already fallen into the fantasy epic trap of slipping deadlines.)

EDIT: for spelling

valadil

2010-01-20, 02:08 PM

But by the end of every book everyone seems to be in a position further down from where they started.

Not sure where I read it, but supposedly Martin said that book 4 is the lowest point in the series and it should be uphill from there. Then again he also said that in book 6 everyone dies and book 7 is 800 pages of descriptions of snow.

warty goblin

2010-01-20, 03:22 PM

To the first point, I'd say that yes everybody may die but in the case of the bad guys there's always more out there to take their place while the number of decent main and supporting characters seems to be dwindling (likewise, not to give anything away). And second, not they don't suffer all the time. You're right about that. But by the end of every book everyone seems to be in a position further down from where they started. Even Jon and Dany who have the 'happiest' story lines so far. Jon didn't want his latest plot twist at all. And Dany is stuck in a rut.

I think the thing that takes the most real adjusting to with Martin is that to a reasonable degree of accuracy there really aren't any bad guys. Oh there are people who do bad things, and lots of them, but the series really doesn't break down into protagonist/antagonist the way most fantasy does. It's just people being people. Vargo Hoat is undoubtedly one of the most loathsome characters in any book I've read, but nobody is going on an epic quest to rid the world of him, because they're too damn busy trying to survive.

pita

2010-01-20, 03:24 PM

Ah, yes. I'd forgotten how Martin was immune to car accidents and other "unnatural" deaths. Like illnesses. :smalltongue:

No, I'm saying those are unpredictable and it's stupid to worry about them until they happened. You could get hit by a bus tomorrow.

Mr. Scaly

2010-01-20, 03:46 PM

I think the thing that takes the most real adjusting to with Martin is that to a reasonable degree of accuracy there really aren't any bad guys. Oh there are people who do bad things, and lots of them, but the series really doesn't break down into protagonist/antagonist the way most fantasy does. It's just people being people. Vargo Hoat is undoubtedly one of the most loathsome characters in any book I've read, but nobody is going on an epic quest to rid the world of him, because they're too damn busy trying to survive.

That's sort of what I meant. The characters are all played realistically, yes, and there's no great quests to rid the world of evil, but that just means that the characters who really are evil, or even just greedy and self interested can prosper and screw over everybody else. And there always seems to be more of them than there are of the genuinely good or idealistic people no matter how many die. Hoat did get what was coming to him but in the end it doesn't matter because he was just a small fish on the scale of evil.

Eldan

2010-01-20, 03:53 PM

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the "no great quest to rid the world from evil"...

We have the looming supernatural evil threat, we have evil armies, we have supernatural forces potentially helping the good guys, we have prophecies, powerful weapons, artefacts and dragons.
Honestly, I can see it going in the direction of "bring these artefacts together in the right location, gather these heroes, destroy the evil ice zombie elves.

Satyr

2010-01-20, 04:03 PM

The characters are all played realistically, yes, and there's no great quests to rid the world of evil, but that just means that the characters who really are evil, or even just greedy and self interested can prosper and screw over everybody else. And there always seems to be more of them than there are of the genuinely good or idealistic people no matter how many die.

Yeah well, that is so very different from real life. Yes, fantasy literature is a subform of escapism, but that doesn't mean it has to be suggared and rose-colored for an easier digestion. Life isn't usually particularly fair, and if it would be easy to be a genuinely good or idealistic person, it wouldn't be anything special.

Shyftir

2010-01-20, 04:08 PM

Those two authors are pretty much the two opposite ends of the fantasy spectrum.

Read GRRM if you want the fantasy equivalent of "Hard" Sci-fi.

Martin is especially good if you want a story with sword and steel being as or more important than magic.

Read Brooks for Tolkien meets Robert Lewis Stevenson.

The Sword of Shannara does start out feeling VERY LotR rip off. That being said it does switch gears a bit halfway through and gets more interesting. As for the series as a whole, the Heritage and the most recent "pure" Shannara stories are the best in my opinion.

Now for really good stuff by Brooks, read the Word and Void trilogy really interesting "modern fantasy" (by which I mean modern times with fantasy elements.) And if you've read the first few Shannara books and the Word and Void stuff, THEN read Armageddon's children and "The Genesis of Shannara."

Mr. Scaly

2010-01-20, 04:13 PM

Satyr

2010-01-20, 04:30 PM

warty goblin

2010-01-20, 04:31 PM

Yeah well, that is so very different from real life. Yes, fantasy literature is a subform of escapism, but that doesn't mean it has to be suggared and rose-colored for an easier digestion. Life isn't usually particularly fair, and if it would be easy to be a genuinely good or idealistic person, it wouldn't be anything special.

I think perhaps a better way to phrase it is that fantasy can be escapism, but I don't think it has to be. There are after all lots of stories that nobody would really consider escapist that are chok full of the fantastic. That the supermajority of the stuff you'd find in the fantasy section of a bookstore is pretty much unvarnished escapism is, I think, fairly clearly the case. I really rather wish it were otherwise, but that's how it is.

I don't mean to imply that I think there is anything wrong with a book being escapist, far from it. Escapism is well and good. Perhaps too dominant for my tastes, but not fundamentally wrong somehow. I do think there is something wrong with insisting that fantasy be escapist though. That approach just limits the genre and assures its eventual irrelevancy. There's plenty of room for both.

Mr. Scaly

2010-01-20, 04:45 PM

Yeah, because happy endings are so incredible rare in fantasy novels. Most books don't have a particular bad ending, and I found it actually quite refreshing to have a more drawn from life approach to characters and their fate.

Well to each their own then.

[/QUOTE]Yes, I know other books which also ends with a more bittersweet touch, but I actually like this in a book. But this is still a vast minority in fantasy literature, or popular as a whole. So it is not the "occasional" good ending, the good ending is so standardised than anything that seems remotely less than a pre 100% victory of the protagonist is directly seen as a bad or a amnivalent outcome.[/QUOTE]

My prefered type of ending is happy, certainly, but it's boring if the protagonists don't earn their happy ending. And I never said that the ending has to be complete. Sure, kill the evil general of Doom, but his dark god of Doom is still alive. The evil king is beaten but his chancelor is still at large. Heck, even if it's a case where Grey defeats Black then I like that outcome.

Satyr

2010-01-20, 04:51 PM

warty goblin

2010-01-20, 05:02 PM

No, there is absolutely nothing wrong with escapism, but I would usually put most hobbies in this aspect. Hell, if you really like reading Kafka and having loads of fun discussing it with your friends, it is still escapism, even though the books are somewhat more complex and perhaps depressing than usual. It is not wrong It is just very human.Neither do I think that it cheapens the genre of fantasy -or fiction as a whole - by describing it as escapism. It is just a matter of fact.

Here I think we disagree somewhat.

To me escapism is something that I can read, watch or play with basically no involvement of the parts of my brain responsible for empathy, emotion or reason. I can simply turn off pretty much everything north of the lizard brain and enjoy some good fun.

Something non-escapist is exactly what one would expect from taking the converse of the previous definition. If I'm thinking or feeling, I'm really not escaping in quite the same way. It's still not real, but I don't see that as really relevant.

Eldariel

2010-01-20, 05:29 PM

I'd consider that debatable with Pratchett still alive.

Sure, it's often comedic fantasy...

Oh, it's debatable, alright. That's why I said he's my pick. I can think of many, many other worthy candidates (most of which have been brought up in this thread, by the way), but I'd still pick Martin bar none.

CDR_Doom

2010-01-20, 06:04 PM

My prefered type of ending is happy, certainly, but it's boring if the protagonists don't earn their happy ending. And I never said that the ending has to be complete. Sure, kill the evil general of Doom, but his dark god of Doom is still alive. The evil king is beaten but his chancelor is still at large. Heck, even if it's a case where Grey defeats Black then I like that outcome.

The problem is that ASoIaF is a single gigantic work, and we haven't reached the end. So far each book has had it's own less than happy ending, but the story itself has a conclusion that is far out of sight and can't be accurately predicted. If it was a movie, no one would complain because a good guy victory hadn't been assured already halfway into the film. Whether or not we'll ever get to see that ending is a separate question:smallwink:

Turcano

2010-01-20, 06:06 PM

Read Steven Brust (the Vlad Taltos series) or Karl Edward Wagner.

I'm a huge fan of Brust, but the man does have problems of his own; a few of his plotlines don't seem to go anywhere. For instance, can someone please tell me what the point of Orca was? Because aside from some eating around the edges, the plotline seemed to resolve itself with no real impact made by the main characters.

Not sure where I read it, but supposedly Martin said that book 4 is the lowest point in the series and it should be uphill from there.

I sure as hell hope so. All I can say is there better be some major payoff or I'm going to feel cheated.

Mr. Scaly

2010-01-20, 06:32 PM

The problem is that ASoIaF is a single gigantic work, and we haven't reached the end. So far each book has had it's own less than happy ending, but the story itself has a conclusion that is far out of sight and can't be accurately predicted. If it was a movie, no one would complain because a good guy victory hadn't been assured already halfway into the film. Whether or not we'll ever get to see that ending is a separate question:smallwink:

True that. If Lethal Weapon 2 had ended with Mel Gibson being chucked off the pier then I somehow doubt it would have been so popular. :smallbiggrin: Sadly, until Martin writes more to the series then we're left with what we've got which can be pretty gloomy.

Optimystik

2010-01-20, 06:58 PM

I'd give Martin the mantle of "best fantasy author alive". So yeah, my suggestion is obvious.

+1 (since Jordan passed away...)

Makensha

2010-01-20, 07:06 PM

Do not read Terry Brooks. Not worth it.
Please note that the information below is probably exaggerated by memory, as I read these books a long time ago.
The series I read was his flagship, the Shannara series (The only book I never finished was the first. I also didn't read any of the prequels set in history before First King) and man is it painful. I read most of the series in middle school, when I didn't know better. My largest problem is how repetitive his books are. A list of my complaints are below:
1. The chick always dies
2. The offspring of earlier characters in each series are in fact the same characters who conceived them, but with different names and occasionally different genders.
3. People die off in a horror movie fashion (one here, one there, eventually the party is whittled down to the druid, a Shannara descendant, Lineage of Leah, one of two Ohmsfords, and maybe some random supporting role guy who is probably an intelligent elf).
4. Standard race stereotypes. Elves shoot arrows, dwarves live in mountains, humans are slowly wiping out the other races, etc.
5. Some old guy who could have stopped the events from happening in the first place will only give a small bit of guided aid for some reason involving the sake of having a plot to read.
6. Lots of over indulgent descriptions. I guess that isn't too bad if you like that kind of thing.
7. There are good guys and bad guys. Nothing in between.
8. Voyage of the Jerle Shannara... Sound similar to a certain C.S. Lewis book? Although you could consider the series a homage.
9. 2 Ultra-Trained elven elite (as in personal king's bodyguards) guard get killed by a single shape shifter in a few seconds while an old king can survive long enough to be rescued.
10. Some adventuring party looks for some artifact that is either evil and must be destroyed or good and is the true salvation of the world while an army attempts to slow down the incoming assault of evil creatures.

I suppose if you really do want to look in to it, start with the Elfstones of Shannara, Wishsong, Heritage series, and then stop. Don't read the first, you'll never get through it, and even if you do you'll regret spending so much time getting through it.

Once again I admit my opinions and memories have been muddled by time, so a certain degree of inaccurate information is probably above.

CDR_Doom

2010-01-20, 07:49 PM

True that. If Lethal Weapon 2 had ended with Mel Gibson being chucked off the pier then I somehow doubt it would have been so popular. :smallbiggrin: Sadly, until Martin writes more to the series then we're left with what we've got which can be pretty gloomy.

Exactly. Since I personally enjoy both style endings, it's not a problem for me to be able to read each book as they flow forth from GRRM's pen like molasses in Northern Canada during January. For a person like you, this series is definitely off limits until it's over and someone can say to you definitively that there is a happy ending.

Also the length can be a turn-off. Even if/when the end comes about people who like their happy endings may not want to sit through thousands of pages of teh gloom to get to it. I mean, my paperback copy of LoTR with all three books combined into one is just over 1000 pages(+ the appendices). My paperback copy of A Storm of Swords is over 1100 pages. (the dimensions of my LoTR copy are larger than ASoS, but the print is larger, so they are roughly comparable.) LoTR is a long story, but ASoS is like 15 minutes in the middle of your hour and a half long movie. For such a massive time investment, the payoff may not be worth it for many people.

Mr. Scaly

2010-01-20, 08:23 PM

Exactly. Since I personally enjoy both style endings, it's not a problem for me to be able to read each book as they flow forth from GRRM's pen like molasses in Northern Canada during January. For a person like you, this series is definitely off limits until it's over and someone can say to you definitively that there is a happy ending.

It's frustrating in general to read a series with such an ongoing plot but the series isn't finished. Almost as bad as starting a series in the middle before you can find the other books. It's not so bad when the books are more independent of each other though. Like, say, the Dragonlance Chronicles. The three books are interconnected but they each have a plot that can stand alone and their own rising action and climax etc. ASOIAF is one big plot line...it's like one book that's only half written.

Also the length can be a turn-off. Even if/when the end comes about people who like their happy endings may not want to sit through thousands of pages of teh gloom to get to it. I mean, my paperback copy of LoTR with all three books combined into one is just over 1000 pages(+ the appendices). My paperback copy of A Storm of Swords is over 1100 pages. (the dimensions of my LoTR copy are larger than ASoS, but the print is larger, so they are roughly comparable.) LoTR is a long story, but ASoS is like 15 minutes in the middle of your hour and a half long movie. For such a massive time investment, the payoff may not be worth it for many people.

The length doesn't bother me. I've read Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn among other large series. Actually in that particular series, the length just made the ending all the sweeter. Like I said, the best happy endings are ones that are earned with blood, sweat and tears.

Weezer

2010-01-20, 08:45 PM

I'd say Martin is the way to go. I've read a few of Brook's shanarra novels, they were rather meh, very alike, very much "traditional" fantasy as many people have pointed out.

Martin on the other hand was a very refreshing read, I enjoyed his much more realistic portrayal of medieval warfare, it matches much closer to my understanding of how horrific historical wars could be. His characterizations are amazing, aside from the true monsters (Gregor, Vargo and the like) all the major characters had a lot of depth to them, no matter if they are "good" or "evil". That is really important to me because barring socio/psychopaths (and even sometimes including them) everyone is an actual person. This is too rarely shown in most epic/high fantasy, usually the villain is some greedy vizier or power hungry necromancer with no real depth/motivation and its pretty clear that Martin avoids this.

Another good thing is that, as others have pointed out, its not very escapist. Most fantasy is escapist and while that can be good much or even most of the time its nice to have a change.

CDR_Doom

2010-01-20, 08:54 PM

It's frustrating in general to read a series with such an ongoing plot but the series isn't finished. Almost as bad as starting a series in the middle before you can find the other books. It's not so bad when the books are more independent of each other though. Like, say, the Dragonlance Chronicles. The three books are interconnected but they each have a plot that can stand alone and their own rising action and climax etc. ASOIAF is one big plot line...it's like one book that's only half written.

Yeah, I think that's the one biggest problem people have with ASoIaF. It's really impossible to look at each book as a book, since they're each sort of a volume of a single book.

And length(or even longer than necessary length) doesn't bother me either(I enjoy both Tom Clancy novels and The Wheel of Time novels), but I know many people who are bothered by it.

Mr. Scaly

2010-01-21, 12:58 AM

Yeah, I think that's the one biggest problem people have with ASoIaF. It's really impossible to look at each book as a book, since they're each sort of a volume of a single book.

And length(or even longer than necessary length) doesn't bother me either(I enjoy both Tom Clancy novels and The Wheel of Time novels), but I know many people who are bothered by it.

Well think of the rejoicing when the last books are released. At last we'll all get to see if the waiting was really worthwhile. I'm sure it will be, but since it's been what, five years since the last book, I think we're all getting a little impatient. :smallwink:

CDR_Doom

2010-01-21, 09:20 AM

Well think of the rejoicing when the last books are released. At last we'll all get to see if the waiting was really worthwhile. I'm sure it will be, but since it's been what, five years since the last book, I think we're all getting a little impatient. :smallwink:

yup. I'll be at the release party, waving my walker in the air and trying not to have a heart attack.

Sprainogre

2010-01-21, 11:49 AM

Helanna

2010-01-21, 08:23 PM

I remembering reading Brooks back in Jr. High and High School (both Shannara and Magic Kingdom For Sale: Sold). I remember liking them, but I also remember not being as big a fan when later sequels came out.

Martin's Song of Ice and Fire is awesome, and I really enjoy it, but there's such a huge gap between volumes. Just means I have a lot to read in between, and need to reread to prep for new books coming out.

Magic Kingdom for Sale was one of the first fantasy series I read, and I was surprised to learn later that Shannara was written by the same author. I couldn't even begin the first book, although that was a few years ago, before I was really into fantasy, so that was probably a large part of it.

I do love A Song of Ice and Fire, but I'm a bit terrified that either I or Martin is going to die before it's finished. I don't mind the length at all, either. After all, I love Robert Jordan. And look how THAT one turned out . . .

thorgrim29

2010-01-21, 10:14 PM

You know, reading his blog, GRRM annoys me less then Pat Rothfuss with the delays... At least he's writing and working on his HBO pilot, even if he' not writing ASOIF. Rothfuss is basically charity-ing himself into poverty instead of doing his actual job (plus, he's had a rough draft of the whole thing done for years supposedly). I know that the writer doesn't work for me (well, technically 1/however many copies he's sold more or less works for me), but author is a job, not something you do between masturbating to Joss Whedon and getting some cred with your fellow writers.

CDR_Doom

2010-01-22, 01:24 AM

I don't mind a long wait between books;I understand that writing is a creative art form subject to outside influences and stresses on the author and I would rather have a long wait than a rushed out piece of junk, but I have a real problem with missing deadlines. That he sets. If you don't know when it's going to be done, don't give a date. That way I'm not expecting anything of you. But setting your release date and then missing it over and over damages your credibility with me as a consumer of your product. I was overjoyed when he finally came out and said that it will be done when it's done, and when it is he'll tell us(but not as much as I would have been had he made the deadlines). I just don't appreciate feeling like I'm being lied to.

FoE

2010-01-22, 01:36 AM

Oh, now you've got me going.

1. The chick always dies

Who do you define as "the chick"? Female characters in the Shannara series very rarely die. Only one book ends with the death of the female love interest, which was mandated by the plot.

2. The offspring of earlier characters in each series are in fact the same characters who conceived them, but with different names and occasionally different genders.

I'll grant you that the Leah family is a bit interchangeable ... but aside from that family, the protagonists vary quite a bit.

3. People die off in a horror movie fashion (one here, one there, eventually the party is whittled down to the druid, a Shannara descendant, Lineage of Leah, one of two Ohmsfords, and maybe some random supporting role guy who is probably an intelligent elf).

You are generalizing, and badly. The only characters that have Plot Armor are the Ohmsfords, who are always the main protagonists.

Would you prefer that the cast were invincible and no one ever died?

4. Standard race stereotypes. Elves shoot arrows, dwarves live in mountains, humans are slowly wiping out the other races, etc.

Dwarves do not live underground in Shannara. Elves are good warriors, but they excel at magic if they excel at anything. Only one group of humans is invested in ruling the Four Lands, and they are controlled by a race of evil magical creatures.

5. Some old guy who could have stopped the events from happening in the first place will only give a small bit of guided aid for some reason involving the sake of having a plot to read.

No. Information is only withheld in order to force the main characters into action, and without said main characters, the plots would end with the bad guys' victory.

7. There are good guys and bad guys. Nothing in between.

While there are many Big Bads in the series, there are rarely any truly "good" characters. The books are of the Black and Grey Morality (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackAndGrayMorality) variety.

9. 2 Ultra-Trained elven elite (as in personal king's bodyguards) guard get killed by a single shape shifter in a few seconds while an old king can survive long enough to be rescued.

Said shapeshifter killed said personal guard because it took a form they didn't expect to attack them. And said old elven king died of his wounds from fighting said shapeshifter.

In any case, it's a minor plot point.

10. Some adventuring party looks for some artifact that is either evil and must be destroyed or good and is the true salvation of the world while an army attempts to slow down the incoming assault of evil creatures.

Fair enough. Most of the books do revolve around the quest for various MacGuffins.

Once again I admit my opinions and memories have been muddled by time, so a certain degree of inaccurate information is probably above.

Obviously.

If you want to read the Shannara series, begin with the Sword of Shannara. Yes, it's derivative, but reading it will help you with the rest of the series. Continue to read The Elfstones, The Wishsong and the entire Scions of Shannara series. Then stop.