[Shurque's biatch]

I told my friend (both of us avid readers) that Goodkind has about 1 good book worth of ideas.

My friend says "well if he should ever write that book I'll read it..."

I enjoyed some of his stuff quite a bit, but end up remembering why I loathe his writing every time I try to read more.

The Belgariad has an important place in the evolution of fantasy, and if Eddings had just stopped there we would all be better off.

I might be able to stomach more Jordan if his books had more than tugging braids and smoothing skirts...

[Talon]

Goodkind, def, I read one book = pulling teeth.... The pillars of creation...drivel, horrible char dev...ok you get the idea.

[Abyss]

I give Eddings some credit - he actually has the characters ADMIT that the same plots are being recycled from early books. It's even a plot device... "Yes, Garion, this has all happened before, and we have to do it all AGAIN before we can beat the bad guy."

In a way, it's similar to the trick of children's TV, of making episodes/characters familiar, and thus comforting to a young audience. Eddings works for young readers and new fantasy readers for this reason, imnsho. It's when you are a bit more 'sophisticated', to use the term loosely, that his works loses or never gains attraction. If you read it at 12 after Alexander and Tolkien, you're way more likely to have enjoyed it than at 25 after Mieville, Erikson and GRRM.

Goodkind, i found, does have about one original, interesting idea per book. It's just lost in the drek.

I had the same problem with Farland. Cool ideas, weak, weak execution.

- Abyss, loves a good execution... Can we start with Goodkind?

[Astra]

Abyss;157487 said:

drek.

Do you belive everybody understand this word?

[Shryval]

I can forgive Eddings for the Belgariad and the Mallorean, they are aimed at young or novice fantasy readers, and are kind of harmless in their twee, formulaic way. However, for Redemption of Althalus, I am personally saving up to hire an assassin to prevent him writing another word.

Stan Nicholls Orcs was dreadful, but at least I finished it, even if I wished I had not.

Ian Irvine's Shadow on the Glass is one I didn't finish. It's monumentally poor and he clearly has no concept of pace, plot, or character development.

[Abyss]

astra_lestat;157490 said:

Do you belive everybody understand this word?

I think the tone is clear, capishe?

- Abyss, speaky cleverish.

[Astra]

Abyss;157569 said:

I think the tone is clear, capishe?

- Abyss, speaky cleverish.

OK. I was just curious

[stone monkey]

drek

I thought everyone did....

[Darkwatch]

Some book called Tanguy from the class reading in 11th grade.

[Aztiel]

I don't know why everyone likes Vellum so much. It makes barely any sense, and unlike SE's more confusing bits, he does nothing else to keep me interested. It feels like he went into a religious library, wrote down a bunch of names, inserted some ridiculously stereotyped gay characters, and sat down to plunk out some gibberish. If you want to read an entertaining account of Sumerian myths, check out Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash. At least that one is fun, it's got a hacker who has samurai swords and railguns.

I also don't like Elliot's Crown of Stars, which I felt got too complicated for no reason and the characters stagnated after three or four books.

I used to enjoy Goodkind books, back when they were mostly about sword fighting, then I read some personal statements from him about philosophy and read his newer books, which are at least 50% preaching from the main character, and now I actively loathe the man.

I've got to disagree with some of you guys on Eddings and Feist though. Eddings is not complicated, but that's part of its charm for me I guess. It was entertaining. And while I couldn't explain why I like Feist, I'd have a hard time understanding what about it could be offensive.

[spiralx]

polishgenius;143094 said:

The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. I just found them so boring.

Oh my yes. And I agree with whoever mentioned Harlequin's Dance by Tom Arden.

Is it James Clemens and his Wit'ch Fire series? With their hu'mans, skel'tons, dw'arves, gi'ants and every possible fantasy cliche, railroaded plot and terrible, terrible writing.

Goodkind as well. And anything Eddings has released in the last decade. Lord of the Rings.

[councilor]

Harry potter. i nominate that one for the fire. despite being somwwhat enjoyable, some of my friends endless ravings about the damn book has just about made me see red every time it's mentioned. and the fact the last book had words that are halve a page in size and they still tried to pass it off in hardback.

did anyone know that goodkind is dyslexic?

io got that off wikipedia...

[paladin]

uhh.. no Wheel of Time yet? god.. most boring, slow, god awful stuff

[Binder of Demons]

Sphere by Micheal Crichton. A quite entertaining book for the first half, then it fells like he handed it over to a 7 year old, and said "could you wrap that up for me there, i've gotten a bit confused and don't know how to finish this off". A steaming pile of $h1+
To follow up on that load, I also had the misfortune of reading TIMELINE by a certain Mr. Crichton. Now I should have known better after my previous experience, but I was in a forgiving mood. Now, i think it's a good exercise to look at the plot of this novel about a group of scientist who use a time travel machine to go back and study the middle ages and then get trapped there. then compare this to the plot of Connie Willis' HUGO and NEBULA award winning novel, THE DOOMSDAY BOOK, about some time travelling scientists/historians who get trapped in the middle ages. DOOMSDAY was written 6 years earlier at least. Aside from the strong sense of deja vu while reading the Crichton book TIMELINE, I think the greater problem was the crap writing and lack of suspense, or ecent characters etc.

And finally, I'm still trying to figure out how/why Gregory Benford is so revered. I read 2 of his books, initially because of his rep, and secondly to give him a chance to redeem himself. I have thankfully managed to blank the titles of these offending novels from my mind.

[Coco with marshmallows]

you know, when it comes to timeline, the mere fact that there is a film starring Paul Walker based on it, that alone is enough to put me off it.

i mean, who keeps giving this guy work? oh and for a bad book - anyone tried stephen lawhead? bad arthurian type fantasy.

[Shurque's biatch]

Aztiel;163331 said:

I used to enjoy Goodkind books, back when they were mostly about sword fighting, then I read some personal statements from him about philosophy and read his newer books, which are at least 50% preaching from the main character, and now I actively loathe the man.

I've got to disagree with some of you guys on Eddings and Feist though. Eddings is not complicated, but that's part of its charm for me I guess. It was entertaining. And while I couldn't explain why I like Feist, I'd have a hard time understanding what about it could be offensive.

I really enjoyed Magician, but couldn't get into Feist's other books. And I agree about Goodkind, his description of the fight when what'shisname gets the sword of truth is great. (obviously a lapse)

I could burn about 75% of Piers Anthony's drivel. Xanth was good when it was light and funny, but perversion and endless painful puns killed it. I did enjoy most of the Aprentice Adept series and a few of the Incarnations of immortality. He is one of the few authors that I probably couldn't read as fast as he wrote. Although I have read many more than I care to admit, I won't be taken in again...

Mercedes Lackey is another one that I go back and forth on. Cool idea and interesting world, just poor execution.

[Jebus]

Wizard's First Rule - Terry Goodkind - I actually forced myself to finish it, why I have no idea.

The Ill Made Mute by Cecilia Dart Thornton - want to impress us with unknown words eh lovey? Screw you! I wouldn't even wipe my arse with it if it was covered in kumquats.

[Locke Reaper]

David eddings is great to read when you just start fantasy, sparhawk and the gang are really fun to read, but as you mature as a reader you need a bit of substance.

A problem i find with some authors is that they think the more a character suffers in the troughs of some horrendous ideological or moral dilemma the more intresting they are. As an example my absolute worst book in the last year, mr. Bakker's warrior-prophet. Over three hundred pages of gut churning religious crap. Don't get me wrong, the concept of the book has some charm but he just kills it.

Another author who has taken torture to a new level is good old terry goodkind. Again great concept, epic wizard war in the making.....someday after richard rahl finally gets to be with the woman he seems to lose every book!!!

robert jordan lost the plot....litrerally, Robin hobb is another one, the liveship traders just got too much, and her new series, shameful.

Steven donaldson, can't see what the fuss is about.
Sara douglass intresting but the religious bit is tedious.
Stephen lawhead is really boring.

And i would have to agree about eragon. Love the fact that the guy could write a novel at the age of 15, respect, but some originality would have been a plus.

I know its a bit weak of me to critises because i know being original and writing even a short story is damn hard...so i blame the publishers!

[Alexani]

I have to agree with everyone who nominated the Yearded One, his "works" really, really need to burn. If I ever feel the urge to be beat about the head with Ayn Rand's "philosophy", I'll bring a friend to the library and have him hit me with the Fountainhead. It would be less painfull, less timeconsuming and cheaper than buying more of the godawfulness that is SoT.

[Varunwe]

Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell - Susanna Clarke

Now I get annoyed everytime someone in The Bonehunters says or thinks oh