[Mentalist]

 Apocalypse Now, on Jan 3 2009, 07:09 PM, said:

I read the first fifty pages or so of that book Talon of the Silver Hawk or something by Feist, it was ok from what I read, but it sounded pretty generic so I stopped. Only now after really getting into fantasy have I discovered that Feist is supposed to be one of the better authors or something, so I don't know what to think.

hmm
I haven't read Feist yet (Getting around to it... eventually)

From what I gathered, his first works, "Magician" and the trilogy that went with that were decent. But he kept writing in the same world, and started to get repetitive, recycle characters/plot like Brooks or Eddings, and eventually became unreadable.

[The Drum]

If your going to read Fiest then i'd suggest that you start at Magican (in usa this is split into two books) then read Silverthorn and A Darkness at Sethanon, thats the first 'trilogy', after that its Prince of the Blood and The King's Bucineer, these two are stand alone reads but are good stories and introduce some important characters. next to read is the serpent wars (my fav) starting with Shadow of a Dark Queen, Rise of a Merchant Prince, Rage of a Demon King and Shards of a Broken Crown.
There are the Krondor books set before the Serpent wars but thier not important to the overall plot so can be read at any time, same goes for the Empire trilogy which was a collaberation with Janny Wurts and is based in the empire of the Tsurani,( set before Magican and through to A Darkness in Sethanon timewise)
Then theres the legends of the riftwar books, each a stand alone novel and based around the riftwar time period.
After the serpent wars its Talon of the Silver Hawk, many readers think the series starts to go down hill from here on, but i'd say if you enjoyed the earlier ones then give it a try.

Hope all that makes sense

[Macros]

Read all the riftwar books (barring murder in lamut, its pointless and quite dull) Read the empire series, If you enjoyed the riftwar, read the interlude books (prine of blood, kings bucjaneer, the kronder mini series) then read serpentwar.
Then stop.
Do not continue

[Terez]

Drum said:

If your going to read Fiest then i'd suggest that you start at Magican (in usa this is split into two books) then read Silverthorn and A Darkness at Sethanon, thats the first 'trilogy'

That's what I read - 4 books, like I said.

[Macros]

if you read 4 books then you read the ritwar and the 3 years following its conclusion

[Terez]

I told you the details were foggy. I vaguely remember him going to that other place but I don't remember anything beyond that.

[polishgenius]

 Mentalist, on Jan 4 2009, 03:33 AM, said:

 Apocalypse Now, on Jan 3 2009, 07:09 PM, said:

I read the first fifty pages or so of that book Talon of the Silver Hawk or something by Feist, it was ok from what I read, but it sounded pretty generic so I stopped. Only now after really getting into fantasy have I discovered that Feist is supposed to be one of the better authors or something, so I don't know what to think.

hmm
I haven't read Feist yet (Getting around to it... eventually)

From what I gathered, his first works, "Magician" and the trilogy that went with that were decent. But he kept writing in the same world, and started to get repetitive, recycle characters/plot like Brooks or Eddings, and eventually became unreadable.

I wouldn't say it's quite all downhill equally - Magician and the Empire trilogy are brilliant, the two books in Riftwar following Magician are meh. Serpentwar has flashes of genius but also parts of him at his worst. The Riftwar Legacy is supposed to be dire, the Riftwar Legends is mixed - okay, but not stunning. His most recent books have stabilised, but they're acceptable rather than great. Probably at about the level of the second two books of Riftwar.

My biggest problem with his later writing has been his tendency to piss on some of the best bits of previous books by reprising characters that didn't need to be reprised - if anyone has followed Doctor Who under Russell T Davies it's rather like that. Oddly enough, though, his writing style seems to have got a bit worse - he was never a master, but his latest books seem more fractured than even during Serpentwar, despite the quality of the story being much more even.

[williamjm]

 The Drum, on Jan 4 2009, 09:42 AM, said:

There are the Krondor books set before the Serpent wars but thier not important to the overall plot so can be read at any time, same goes for the Empire trilogy which was a collaberation with Janny Wurts and is based in the empire of the Tsurani,( set before Magican and through to A Darkness in Sethanon timewise)
Then theres the legends of the riftwar books, each a stand alone novel and based around the riftwar time period.

I think the Empire trilogy he did with Wurts is possibly the best thing he's written, and the most original work as well. Out of the Legends books, I thought Honoured Enemy which he wrote with William Fortschen was a good piece of military fantasy and better than any of Feist's other books in the last decade.

The three Krondor books on the other hand are very weak, particularly the two computer game adaptations.

Out of the 'main' Riftwar books I'd say they start to really go downhill starting with Shards of a Broken Crown.

[MTS]

I would agree. I liked Feist in the beginning of his series, starting with the Riftwar and the Empire series. Those I find great reads. The Serpentwar I found interesting, but not overly great. I did this all during my early/mid teens, then found out about Erikson, Hobb and Donaldson and kinda shelved most generic fantasy. Then I came back 4 years later and tried to read The Conclave of Shadows and the Darkwar series. Couldn't do it. I had to force myself to get through it up to Flight of the Nighthawks. The idea of an insane magician able to switch bodies through necromantic rituals seemed a bit recycled to me, kinda like that Voldemort guy splitting his soul into 6 pieces or whatever it was. Same thing happened with Edding's The Dreamers series (anything he did with his wife inevitably turned out bad, so I'm steering clear). What I think Feist needs is a better plot premise, and a little more originality. The epitome of evil imprisoned by the other gods and is breaking free of his prison, interacting with mortals to achieve his aim? Sounds too Jordan or Cook for my liking (although from what I've read so far, the Dominator doesn't seem to play that major a role in the Black Company books).

This post has been edited by Mappo's Travelling Sack: 06 January 2009 - 03:40 AM

[Tattooed Hand]

I have to say that eddings and Tad williams are on my list. I read both in high school and thought they were boring and lame, especially William's never ending to green angel tower. EDIT man EDIT.

I've often poopooed Bakker and went back and did a re-read. The philosophy is certainly well thought out and I agree with a lot of it. True, its delivery is sometimes heavy handed. But this might be something he can work out better over time.

But my real criticism is that the philosophy talks about how the Inrithi and the Fanim, like all world born men are slaves to their belief, which are basically all tribal lies and lead to living in delusion. OK, fine. But the author has constructed a world that is structured according to the tribal lies of one of these sets of beliefs, the Inrithi, which is a very thinly veiled Christian Europe. It pervades the whole way in which the Fanim, their society and culture and their history are constructed and it closely follows the warped view of Islam common to Christianity in the Middle Ages - the Fanim are have repudiated the Tusk, that their prophet was a heretic, that they have a decadent, voluptuous culture, etc. Overall, the re-read made me enjoy the books more, but this one thing stuck in my throat. But then, except for Erikson, I have yet to encounter any fantasy written in English where the thinly veiled Easterners (Muslims, or any brown people and their cultures) aren't depicted according to these stereotypes. So it's not like Bakker is unique in this sense. I was just disappointed because for someone able to see so perceptively in the abstract, he wasn't able to transcend what he was describing in the delivery of the story. (Such is the case with many philosophers, I cover my ears when Habermas begins talking about history because it's usually caca).

[Abyss]

 caladanbrood, on Nov 25 2008, 01:29 PM, said:

Robin Hobb's Assassin's Blah Blah Blah.

It's like death by mulched forest.

I had to go back in order to give Brood props for this statement. Henceforth 'death by mulched forest' shall be in my nomenclature arsenal. or something.

 Sixty, on Nov 30 2008, 08:01 PM, said:

What makes everyone hate Goodkind so much? ...

Two words: evil chicken. Discussion over.

 Tamilyrn, on Dec 16 2008, 04:49 AM, said:

Quote

- Russell Kirkpatrick's trilogy...I forget the name, but the first book was called Across the Face of the World. The first book was literally a bunch of people walking around a lot. No tension, no memorable characters...blah. Mind you, he was a geographer first, so maybe that explains it?

+1 : Absolute drivel.

...

And once again, this forum saves me from myself. The pretty covers drew me but the lack of positive comment warned me away.

 mocker, on Dec 16 2008, 04:17 PM, said:

...worst series... David Drakes Lord of the Isle's (at least i think that was the name) series. utter poop

I gave it three books. There were a handful of neat ideas... how skill in magic mattered more than raw power, the girl possessed by the friendly ghost of her dead master ninja assassin best friend, the Moorcock-like ease of jumping between parallel dimensions... but overall, weak. Drake should stick to mil sf.

 mandog, on Dec 23 2008, 06:52 PM, said:

In reguards to the whole rules discussion. Do you think that with the way the reader is thrown into Gardens of the Moon, and left to figure all out, that there is a potential for SE to hurt his "world building" because the rules of the world are never really established until the reader puts away a big chunk of book. So, while putting away that big chunk of book the reader really doesnt ever have a complete sense of the world they are in and what is within its boundries. For example I'm about halfway through the first book, and I dont really have a clue as to what the magicians are fully capable of.

I've mentioned before that this is what i loved about SE and specifically GM... it throws you into the story and trusts you to figure it out as you go. Sadly, this doesn't work for the mass fantasy audience who needs a naive farmboy/poor servant girl/lost orphan to figure everything out, page by page and exposition it all for them. Seriously, look at most of the bestselling series in fantasy and you have an under-informed character who step by step finds themselves in a situation that allows the author to explain, piece by piece to the reader, what's going on. Feist had Pug and Thomas. RJ had Rand and co from Two Rivers. Eddings had Garion. Even Goodkind's Dick started out as an ignorant woodsman. ffs, Harry frikkin Potter is textbook intro character who doesn't even deny he needs everything explained to him in simple terms. The reason these series' are so successful, in part, is because its EASY for the reader to come in.

 Macros, on Jan 3 2009, 12:54 PM, said:

did you read the original magician or the tenth anniversary edition? (a considerable step up as he rewrote the book)

Hmmm. i wasn't aware of this.

 The Drum, on Jan 4 2009, 04:42 AM, said:

If your going to read Fiest then i'd suggest that you start at Magican (in usa this is split into two books) then read Silverthorn and A Darkness at Sethanon, thats the first 'trilogy', after that its Prince of the Blood and The King's Bucineer, ...

I'm just going to say this here and now: skip King's Bucaneer. It's insulting to any reader over the age of 12.

Why? I hear you ask.... because Feist actually takes the 'risk' of having a crippled, physically challenged character, but then has a mage 'fix' the handicap leg in the first ten pages or so, and casually mentioning that for the first sixteen years of the kid's life, wow, that magic never worked. The character then proceeds to have 'leg pain' every time he's challenged until he conquers his fear or something, assisted by the usual cast of archetype sidekicks and evildoers with twirly mustaches. Do you see why this irritates me? - Feist actually started out something novel and different - a genuinely crippled character as the protagonist in a fantasy story - and rather than work with this, he uses the 'hey, it's magic!' escape hatch and turns it into a lame 'conquer your fear' storyline. The character was never afraid in the first place. He was working his ass off to be just as good as everyone else even with his crippled leg. So in the first ten pages or so it looks like Feist is going to write something truly original for its time...but then he bails. He bails huge and the book just meanders along its crap way from there. This was where Feist lost me as a reader even before his slide downhill.


It was disappointing. After a truckload of brave farmboys and plucky serving wenches up to that years ago point, i thought i was going to read something different and instead it read like the author didn't have the balls for the story he should have written.

- Abyss, harsh critic.

This post has been edited by Abyss: 06 January 2009 - 05:39 PM

[Aptorian]

 Tattooed Hand, on Jan 6 2009, 06:24 PM, said:

I have to say that eddings and Tad williams are on my list. I read both in high school and thought they were boring and lame, especially William's never ending to green angel tower. EDIT man EDIT.

It's been a while since I read his stuff but I remember liking his work. Otherland was okay but... did it ever end? I remember that pissed me off.

On the other hand I remember reading War of the Flowers and finding it completely awesome. Sort of like China Mievilles Bas-Lag. Giant armored giants, Dragons used as WMDs, People snorting pixies to get high, etc. I thought it was awesome and I liked the ending.

Now I'm afraid to reread War of the Flowers...

[detritus]

 Aptorian, on Jan 6 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

 Tattooed Hand, on Jan 6 2009, 06:24 PM, said:

I have to say that eddings and Tad williams are on my list. I read both in high school and thought they were boring and lame, especially William's never ending to green angel tower. EDIT man EDIT.

Giant armored giants, Dragons used as WMDs, People snorting pixies to get high,

Ok that sounds bad ass.

[Aptorian]

It does, doesn't it

Hmm... feel like reading that book again now.

I'm guessing after having read more top tier fantasy authors since then, I might be less impressed by Williams talent, but the content of the story is certainly awesome.

EDIT: Just noticed that I called giants... giants above. Hmm, gigantic giants, that makes no sense

[Hoods_Balls]

How about Steven Brust...
I was a huge Vlad Taltos fan, great books with a fast pace style.
Then i went and read : The Viscount of Adrilankha, three volumes:
The Paths of the Dead (2002)
The Lord of Castle Black (2003)
Sethra Lavode (2004)
WTF???
Hoods Hoary Balls ive never read anything that made me this f*ing bored.
There are only two series that ive started and not finished...barring ones that have yet to be completed, and the other was Eddings Elder gods.
His first couple trilogies that i read, the Tamuli and the Elenium were lots of fun... i was young and i found the Church knights banter and casual brutality to be great fun.
I think he tried to recapture this casual flipancy/comedy that i found to be so much fun in those first novels in the elder gods, and not only missed the target but might as well have shot his eye out red rider bb gun style.
Also i could have forgiven Goodkind and called SoT a success if Dick had just shut the f*ck up and banged Nicci already.

[Abyss]

Williams' WAR OF THE FLOWERS wasn't bad at all. It skipped a lot of the long-winded drifting that OTHERLAND and MS&T suffer from. It's reasonably tight but a nice long read in a fun setting. It verges on urban fantasy at points but you can tell he's having great fun 'modernizing' a faerie world. (ahem... 'the surgery'.... ahem). The 'giant armoured giants' were awesome and i want him to write a whole other book about that.

- Abyss, in a 12 step program for pixie snorting addiction.

[detritus]

 Abyss, on Jan 6 2009, 08:18 PM, said:

- Abyss, in a 12 step program for pixie snorting addiction.

Where can I sign up for that program?

[Abyss]

 mandog, on Jan 6 2009, 04:15 PM, said:

 Abyss, on Jan 6 2009, 08:18 PM, said:

- Abyss, in a 12 step program for pixie snorting addiction.

Where can I sign up for that program?

ask the pixies.

- Abyss, light-headed.

[Paran]

 Tattooed Hand, on Jan 6 2009, 06:24 PM, said:

I have to say that eddings and Tad williams are on my list. I read both in high school and thought they were boring and lame, especially William's never ending to green angel tower. EDIT man EDIT.

I've often poopooed Bakker and went back and did a re-read. The philosophy is certainly well thought out and I agree with a lot of it. True, its delivery is sometimes heavy handed. But this might be something he can work out better over time.

But my real criticism is that the philosophy talks about how the Inrithi and the Fanim, like all world born men are slaves to their belief, which are basically all tribal lies and lead to living in delusion. OK, fine. But the author has constructed a world that is structured according to the tribal lies of one of these sets of beliefs, the Inrithi, which is a very thinly veiled Christian Europe. It pervades the whole way in which the Fanim, their society and culture and their history are constructed and it closely follows the warped view of Islam common to Christianity in the Middle Ages - the Fanim are have repudiated the Tusk, that their prophet was a heretic, that they have a decadent, voluptuous culture, etc. Overall, the re-read made me enjoy the books more, but this one thing stuck in my throat. But then, except for Erikson, I have yet to encounter any fantasy written in English where the thinly veiled Easterners (Muslims, or any brown people and their cultures) aren't depicted according to these stereotypes. So it's not like Bakker is unique in this sense. I was just disappointed because for someone able to see so perceptively in the abstract, he wasn't able to transcend what he was describing in the delivery of the story. (Such is the case with many philosophers, I cover my ears when Habermas begins talking about history because it's usually caca).

Well, Bakker did base the whole saga on the first crusades, including the explanations of all the battles, so it's a given that it's the Christians and the Muslims.

[polishgenius]

What I found interesting is that despite the very obvious Crusades basis, I found Kellhus in many ways to be a Mohammed parallel. Which hit home with the 'he doesn't heal!' bit.

Oh, and in answer to that criticism, while it might be true, the 'Christian' side is equally flawed - and we have no real proof of what their culture is like anyway, for the majority of the novel we're receiving the perceptions of the characters, and it makes sense that they perceive their mortal enemies in a bad light.