[QuickTidal]

Fool said:

You could feel sad for us if we never bothered to try. But we did. And we didnt like it (as much as you did anyway) and if we continued to read we'd probably continue to like it less than you did so we arent missing out on anything.



Sure, and Robert Jordan is a good author for the type of material that consists of entire books of filler. And Terry Goodkind is a good author for the type of material thats pro-capitalist propaganda in a fantasy setting. And David Eddings is a good author for telling the same derivative story over and over and...

... well, you see where this is going. But here comes the kicker, there's lots and lots of people who love all these authors and who love them for what they do. Just as there's lots of people who love dan brown for writing no-brainer, fluff thrillers and who love rowling for writing easily readable, very likable but shallow children's fantasy books.

But that doesnt make'em all good. And if there's someone who just so happens to hate easily readable, very likable but shallow children's fantasy books bloody well let them!

Hey, you can read right? I said I was not trying to force anything on anyone, simply defending what are good books to people who want to categorize them as bad...or shallow.....shallow? Really, is that what you get? Why don't you have one more bloody look at characters like Sirius Black, or how about Snape....Snape has so many shades it isn't even funny. You see, dismissing it so easily....as I am sure you gave it a roaring chance...lol...you miss out on some characters of incredible depth. It's NOT shallow, and I think it is really sad that you feel the need to label it so. Are you also one of those people who won't enjoy a song you may like simply cause it's Kelly Clarkson or something? Welcome to grade 9 ladies and germs...HA. Watch out or the cool kids might think you lame!

Oh, and for the record, In Quidditch not everyone can catch the snitch, the seekers job is to attempt it capture, there have been games where no one has caught the snitch in the books (but then, you'd know that right??). The point is, they play the game and score points, and should their seeker be good enough, he can catch the snitch and win the game.....UNLESS...the other team is ahead by more than 150 points...then catching the snitch does not mean the end of the match. Oh, and by the way, when was the last time you invented a sport?

Oh, and when is your next book coming out?

[Illuyankas]

But, catching the snitch when the points difference is more than 150 still ends the match, it just means you lost. All that means is that unless your team is a bunch of incompetent fools, which they wouldn't be at a professional level, only the seeker matters. It turns it into no more than a more dangerous version of tennis. Sorry, it's a rubbish sport. And I have invented a sport, it's called action pool. Similar to normal pool, except that you have five seconds for each shot, and if you foul, you take a shot. Very fun around the fifth match, I can tell you

[QuickTidal]

Okay, one thing. I can't really slight those who have tried this series (PAST book 1 & 2) if they don't like it, cause I have officially thrown in the towel on the Prince of Nothing series 3/4 of the way through the Warrior-Prophet, cause I wasn't enjoying it, so on this point perhaps it is the same deal with some who have read HP.

[ObsoleteResolve]

There's something you have to look at with Rowling. Yes, her language is simple. Yes, the sentence structure is a little more simplistic than most. However, for the audience she writes for (young adults), it works. What you also have to consider is that the average American (well, since I'm in America, I rely on that ) doesn't exactly have the highest reading level.

What you also have to consider is that she's doing one thing, one thing that has my cheerful applause: interesting another young generation in fantasy. If even 5% of Rowlings fans continue reading the genre because of Rowling, that is 5% who otherwise would not have read fantasy.

Leveling criticisms at Paolini, well, I won't even stand up for that two-bit, egotistical, talentless hack. But at least Rowlings is more than sub-literate, and she's revitalized the genre of fantasy for a new generation. That alone has my kudos.

.david

-And, on the, well, elitist idea that a book that doesn't cause reflection must automatically be a bad book. I read some pretty fluff stuff, but, seriously, what is wrong with that? When I read a book like that, I'm reading it for simple entertainment. It doesn't have to be genius. There's not alot of genius out there, so, well, if you limit yourself to just that, then you probably won't be reading alot.

I think it boils down to personal taste and the goal with which you go into reading. If you want something to shake you up, to make you think, in modern fantasy, that is Erikson and Martin. If you want just entertainment, then, what's wrong with reading Eddings, or Jordan, or whatever?

I usually try to save my worst criticisms for people who: tell the story badly, making horrible errors that any college course or passing knowledge of writing will tell you is terribly wrong, or cliched tales that are told in a cliched way. Cliche's can be interesting, as long as the author has at least a passing skill. If they have to resort to simple parrotting of anothers work, then, well... Why are you reading them? Read the original.

Too many people want to take the whole "this is good writing, this is bad writing." I, personally, save the second classification for only a few: Paolini and Irvine* are the primary two. I don't like Mieville or Bakker, no, and I think there are some bad mistakes in there that make the reading a trial and not a pleasure, but that's me, and I try to acknowledge that. Eddings? He can tell a tale, even though they are all 95% similiar. He's entertaining in a light sort of way. Would I pass up the next Martin book for the next Eddings? No, but that's simply because Martin does more for me.

For some, Eddings does more for them than Martin.

*-I also throw stones at Goodkind the Randroid, but that's simply because I think either extreme- pure objectivism or pure relativism -is an over simplification of a much more complex world. I also think each book is a tiresome repetition. Oh no, the world's going to end again, Richard has to save us all six months after his last adventure! At least Wizards First Rule was some good, light entertainment. In each book, such things as "characterization" and "plot" and such go out the window in favor of his idiotphilosophy, to the point that they're not a novel in the conventional sense- they're propaganda.

[QuickTidal]

Dude, you said what I wanted to say, but put it far more eloquently. From now on I should defer to you for my statements on such matters!

[QuickTidal]

Harold Bloom said:

Steven Erikson and George RR Martin are the great hopes of invigorating mainstream fantasy with some depth.

Readers weaned on Harry Potter would allow the genre to waddle in mediocrity. Hopefully, they will have little impact on what gets published. Otherwise, fantasy will continue to be much less challenging than prime time television.

Seriously dude....kids are friggin reading again, don't EVER think that to be a bad thing. Otherwise you might as well not bother to call yourself one.

[QuickTidal]

Fool said:

Yeah, i can read. Can you?

I dont even dislike HP. I dont think its the worst fantasy book ever written (by a long way) and i dont think its the best (by an even longer way). I am merely pointing out that if people hate the type of book that harry potter is then there is very little point in you 'defending' it.

And I am sure there are fans of other books that have been mentioned in this thread around as well. If they all tried to 'defend' them this thread would be a giant flame fest.

So there are people out there who hate a book you consider awesome. Get over it already.

Okay, what exactly do you consider Flaming?

I can absolutely read...and being that I live in the gloriously free country of Canada FOOL, I'll defend it all I like, and debate stuff like saying it's shallow....cause hey, freedom baby.....

....and if people want to take issue with other books mentioned by me or others as being hated or bad, they should absolutely do so!! Or is the point of this thread simply to state bad books and have no actual debate or discussion about it?......Cause I am gonna say that'd be boring, but maybe you want to live in that bland world? hmmmm?:hand:

[Morgoth]

Right, this is enough from the both of you.

@QuickTidal - accept that other people have other opinions than you! Disagree all you like, but I do not want to see the sort of language, nor the accusations you've used during the last two pages.

@Fool - I know you have difficulties letting a discussion go when you feel you're in the right, but this is just flaming back and forth now. Please just let it go..

If I see more of this I'll use my flaming sword of modship to burn the posts into oblivion.

[Tsundoku]

The Postman.
Book - Excellent.
Movie - "Pants".
Brin is a scientist who can actually tell a tale, but mostly sticks to SF. HOWEVER, try "The Practice Effect" for a tongue-in-cheek crossover story.

The Jackal of Nar.
Book 1 - good ideas, could have been done better.
Book 2 (The Grand Design) - "Pants". It had a little bit of character development, but was a bit of a chore.
Book 3 (The Saints of the Sword). Much better. Built on the meanderings of Book 2 and took it a bit further. I have to say Renato Biagio is one of my favourite characters, so sue me.

For a thread about the worst fantasy you have read, it has spent an awful lot of time attempting to define what is "good". Pretty damn subjective, methinks. Just to be on record, HP is far from the best and worst fantasy I have read. It entertains me, and that's it.

Cheers,

La Sombra, may not know art but knows what he likes.

[Folken]

Seems like some people missed Morgoth's post and if they didn't morgoth's warning wasn't meant for only Fool and QuickTidal.
If you can't have a civil discussion don't get involved. It's not a hard task to get your point across without insulting other members. Next time I won't just be deleting the posts.

Oh and PM if you have a complaint, don't start posting here

[ObsoleteResolve]

Jen'isand: I searched for Morgoths post. I normally don't read the majority of the Malazan Forums posts religiously, so, (shrugs). Didn't see it.

And, well, I won't exactly say my deleted post was nice but, for me, it was positively rosy

That, and the fact that he also insulted a pretty solid amount of the people on the Malazan forums, as well as myself, in trying to paint broad swaths with the brush called stupid, when attempting to apply his lowest-common denominator judgement upon would-be writers.

One other note I wish to make: I am an abrasive individual quite frequently, and I won't even attempt to say otherwise. Maybe I'm judgemental, but lines like "I hope that children's literacy doesn't come at my expense" tend, in my opinion, to not deserve... equal treatment. The words "reprehensible" and "bankrupt" come to mind in regards to them.

Quote

PPS If I were still a kid and I didn't want my brain to become obsolete, I might read Lord of the Flies, Old Man and the Sea, Alice in Wonderland, Wind and the Willows, The Once and Future King, Last of the Mohicans, and Huckleberry Finn. If I had even more resolve, I might read some Dickens.

(Applause) Ooooh, witty! Were you stroking your full, glorious beard as you typed that? You still didn't address any of the issues I raised: that of children reading at a level appropriate for them; Jordan and Goodkind and Rowlings subsidizing the vast majority of the fiction that their respective publishers publish that doesn't sell as good as they; of using the lowest common denominator to cast aspersions upon a broad swath of people; the fact that the vast majority of humanity- of course excepting your special, beautiful, handsome savant* self who was reading Dickens and Twain and Dostoyevsky at five -started out with fiction of a lower level and then gradually grew into more complex forms.

But, don't worry, bucko. I didn't expect you to.

Oh, as a side note: do you wear a beret? I could see you in a beret.

.david
*- I'm not refering to the first definition of Savant, by the way.

[werewolfv2]

Ainulindale said:

, the entire Deathgate Cycle by Weiss and Hickman.

wouldnt say it was thw worst, but the 3 books I waded through were fairly dismal

Valgard said:

Thomas whining annoying git covenant god just do something stop whinging all the time he really annoyed me.
.

TC was one of the worst Ive read in the last year fo'sho

longhorn said:

I

Oh, and here's another gem - Dennis (?) McKiernan's stuff.

do NOT dis the man! (btw: you might want to check some things before bashing him)

Dagger said:

Laurell K Hamilton's Anita Blake series - I kept reading this for the action and the hope for the promised smut to happen. But it turned into a giant Mary Sue wankfest..

note to self, dont read anymore of LKH (only read two books, lite and decent but nothing to write home about)

[ObsoleteResolve]

Kayasmus:

The only way I can retain any of the tattered shred of my faith in the species we call "Homo Sapien Sapien" is to believe that it is a parody. I must hold this. Do not refute this. It must be a parody.

Here's a few lines in the ASoFaI thread:

Quote

ou really shouldn't be reading those "Fire and Ice" books. Not only does the author seem to be milking the franchaise for all its worth (I mean seven books? Come on), they're also needlessly full of gratitous sex and violence.

Stick to Goodkind.

In the Tolkien thread:

Quote

Tolkien just can't write at all. He frequntly mispells words like "colour", and he makes up all kinds of ridiculous sounding names for all his characters. And he never gives you any reason to hate the villians. Sauron's just "Bad Evil". Just because. I mean if you want to make someone hate a villian, you should show them mollesting children or something. Don't just say their bad because their evil.

It has to be a joke. The obviousness of complaining about misspellings while engaging in that, and the complaining about sex and violence when Comrade Goodkind (I think I'm going to call him that all the time now...) is well known for his penchant for horrific sado-masochism, which isn't just sex, and isn't just violence, but is a lovely blending of both, and complaining about number of books.

.david