While I didn’t actually do any book hurling, I remember being put off starting any other fantasy series for quite a while after trying the first two Shannara books. Formulaic pap would be how I’d describe it.
I read the back-cover blurb of the third, ‘Wishbone’- or whatever it’s called, and found that, once again, the long-lost second cousin of the last king’s court jester’s cat was the only being who could hope to stop the yadda yadda yadda…
I knew that there had to be more imaginative sci-fi/fantasy novels out there, and it didn’t take long to find one, thank Og.
I’ve never been able to understand the complaints of “cloning soandso.”
It’s as if people feel they “discovered” soandso and any manipulation of their original formula is an affront and an attack to not only the originator* but also to those that “discovered” them.
Why don’t fans of mystery novels gripe about Poe being ripped off? Or the fans of adventure novels moan that it’s all just a cheap knockoff of “The Iliad?”
There are only so many “original” ways to tell a story and just because someone wrote it first doesn’t give them exclusive rights to the style, nor is anyone that later comes along and utilizes a similar style a “cloner.” Every author I’ve ever heard discuss what makes a good author has stated that one of the keys is to shamelessly steal from other authors.
That being said, I enjoyed the SoS series… as a teenager. Now I realize that it’s merely adequate writing by an adequate story teller who seemed to be in a bit of a rush, but I wouldn’t accuse Brooks of “cloning” Tolkien anymore than I would R.A. Salvatore or any of the other sword and sorcery style authors.
I do see where people could get angry though, it’s not just a style that Brooks adopted so much as it seems he just changed the histories and names of characters and called it his own. But, how much of it was intentional, how much of it was flattery through imitation, and how much of it was coincidental similarity merely inspired by his having read LotR et al?
To the OP: I’d shell out the cash to go see it in the theaters, sure. I try to encourage all sword and sorcery movies (yes, I even paid to see the dreadful AD&D: The Movie) in what ways I can because I love the genre and there just aren’t enough good movies around set in that particular environment. I also think Walker Boh would be pretty cool on the big screen.
*An originator of any literary style of course being debateable as everyone is influenced by every author they’ve ever read and any style they use is merely a combination of the ones they relate best to.
Indeed,soulmurk I read alot of “sword & sorcery” in the 70’s styles didn’t vary much, because it was formula. The field simply doesn’t lend it self to huge leaps of context. It wasn’t & isn’t great literature, it is completely escapist. No matter whose well one drinks from, after a while it all tastes the same. There were worse fantasy writers, than Terry Brooks, and there were some who were head & shoulders above him. I loved Tad Williams venture into the world of castles and dragons, but if you asked me about a particular scene in a specific book, I couldn’t help you.In fact, I can’t even remember the names of the Williams series. (I do remember Tailchaser’s Song, now there was a fun read!)
Was it really that much different than the spate of Arthurian fiction from the late 60’s?
It was and is simply transportation to a place more exciting than here and now.
I recently read Brooks’ venture back to the four lands. A complete departure, but still a ticket to ride.
Manduck Books are our friends, we never, never, hurl them, unless they are The Magus by John Fowles. Love and hate were never so finely balanced as I hurled it to the wall… all three times I read it!
Come on, people! The similarities between Sword of Shannara are so palpably close – the Quest, the Object of Power, the gang of mixed Races, etc. – that they got the Brothers Hildebrandt, the then-current illustrators of The Lord of the Rings (for calendars and suchlike) to draw the cover and centerfold for the first edition. The point is that fantasy doesn’t have to be about a worlf-threatening evil magic figure who can only be defeated by a band of multicultural adventurers who go on a Quest for a magical item. There’s a long “literary” and pulp tradition of fantasy that long predates Tolkien. Heck, I read Conan the Barbarian before I read LOTR, and the two are nothing alike. The Once and Future King. Harry Potter. To say that we shouldn’t complain because something resembles another work, especially a very popular one, is to miss the point. You ought to be able to create an original work. Enough other fantasy writers have done this. For all I know, Brooks has, in his other Shannara books or in his Magic Kingdom books. But to complain about people criticizing SoS for being derivative by arguing that it couldn’t be otherwise is absurd.
As a slight aside, does anyone else remember when /every/ fantasy book, no matter what it was about, or how it was written, had “Comperable to Tolkien at his best” in the accolades on the back?
But they weren’t trying to destroy an object of power they already had. There is a prophesy in SoS, not one in LOTR. And… oh I forget the differences. I’ll see if I noted them in my SoS copy. There are TONS of them. In fact, there are so few similarities I really can’t see how people are comparing the two. And the similarities are similar to most other sword and sorcery stories. I’ll check tonight. I don’t want to get into this book again, just to get all pissed off again. I’m glad I wrote my criticisms in the margins.
You want a different type of fantasy/sword&sorcery story… Wheel of Time.
I’ve read them all. In general, they are okay light reading, but I have to say the last series he wrote is abysmal - Voyage of Shannar or something. I’ve blocked them from my mind. As far as clones go, you can’t beat Eddings - he clones himself! I swear he wrote the same book 10 times.
I read Sword of Shannara during the three days that Connecticut was shut down by the blizzard of '78 and the shame of it lingers 25 years later. I’ve never so bitterly regretted the time I spent reading any other piece of literature. Not only was it totally derivative, generic fiction, but it was also stylistically bereft with an anticlimactic ending. Reading it was the literary equivalent of eating Cheetos and Circus Peanuts continually for three straight days.
For Christmasq last year I got a couple of books from my Mum:
Sword of Shannara, which I’ve at least heard of, and some dodgy book called “A Game of Thrones” which had literally the dullest blurb of all time.
So, naturally, I started reading Shannara. About 150 pages in I was appalled with the continuing turgidity of it and its terminal dullity. So I, with trembling hands, went for the one that looked like a dull historical novel.
Of course, a week later I’d finished all three (four. some chap had the bright idea to split the third and get me to cough up more money. bastards) books currently in print and am anxiously awaiting the fourth…
The good-natured matronly authority figure
The good-natured mysterious innocent who is really a God
The good-natured youth, ignorant of his central importance
The good-natured feisty love interest
The good-natured comic-relief secondary character
The good-natured thief who’s not ashamed of who he is. (May double as the comic relief.)
The dark-hearted Deity whom the Hero must destroy.
The peripheral characters involved up to their earlobes in political intrigue.
The Wheel of Time is different from Tolkein? The author himself admits he was thrying to make the first book sound like LoTR to get fans. THAT’S pandering.
Well, it’s different from Tolkien in the sense that besides copying LotR, it also rips off Dune and Donaldson’s Thomas Covenant. Readers unfimilar with those works my mistakingly believe that Jordan posseses some originality.
Back to the OP - Shanara? Please. If I really want to read a Tolkien pastiche, I’ll read Guy Kay’s Fionavar Tapestry. It’s just as derivative but a hell of a lot better written.
Gah, I was going to try to re-read the book to see if I would hate it now that I’m not 13, but I seem to have left it at my parents place. I guess I didn’t see any need to keep it with me when I moved out!
MetalDog, I love Eddings too! You’re right about the plots, but when the characters are so damn fun you tend not to care about that so much. Sparhawk is still my favorite character from any book. Ever.
Raymond Fiest is one author that I actually did throw into the library bin when I was finished with it. Ugh! His heroes are all corrupted by the end of the forst book in a series. I could go on about it, but it just gets me riled up…
So Eddings has a few character types who work. People like to read them. The dialogue is fun, and you feel like you know the characters. They are likable and well written, unlike JRRT’s annoying, whiney, supercilious, mysteious characters.
I know that it’s a sin to disparage JRRT here, but while he created an interesting world, it was populated with some of the lamest characters ever. Aragorn excluded. I liked him.
But he does them /well/ and that made all the difference for me. I don’t mind rehashings of plots (for in truth, cannot all plots be tracked back to simple fairy tales?) or character types, so long as they are done well =)
His plot I can take or leave, but I like the Belgariad characters. Wasn’t so taken with the Sparhawk lot - not sure why.
To critisise Tolkien for his characters is to critisise Eddings for his plot, really. LOTR was more about the mileu than the characters in many ways and he did it spectacularly. Not my cup of tea, because I prefer character-centric stories, but the man sure could write.
