[Shehzad]

With all the wars going on nowadays, I'm afraid that my topic will get lost in the crossfire, but still....

Some authors tend to create new worlds for new series, while others linger on and on in the same world long past the sell-by date. I wonder if some of the lack of freshness of the newer Feist, Brooks and Goodkind books is down to their being placed in the same setting as a zillion other books. I think that sometimes an author needs to realize that the possibilities of a world he's created are exhausted. By creating a new world, he opens himself to creativity which he may have stifled himself by limiting himself to a single setting.

As an example, I greatly admire Weis/Hickman's world-creating abilities. They fleshed-out Krynn first (I know, not created), but they also created the Deathgate world, the Darksword world, the Rose of the Propher world, the Starshield world, and the Star of the Guardians world... On the other hand, Dragons of Summer Flame which was their 7th book in the Dragonlance series, seemed stale as compared to the other 6. As good as Stephen Donaldson's Chronicles were, he himself has stated that he most probably won't reprise the Land. Instead he moved on to the world of Mordant, and then the Gap.

Another difficulty that I see in writing again and again in the same setting is that every book in a series, or if conceived as a trilogy, every trilogy should have adequate "closure" on its own. You should have a sense of satisfaction after finishing a series. At the same time, adequate closure makes it difficult to start a new series in the same world. For example, some portions in Fiest's Serpentwar saga seemed contrived to me.
FEIST SERPENTWAR SAGA SPOILER ALERT
*
*
*
*
*
*
Too much of the series seemed to me an attempt to explain why Pug and Tomas couldn't act. The ending was, quite frankly, poor. Pug, Nakor and all the other powerful mages decide, let's end it today, they walk into the enemy's hall, and blow them away. Whoopee.
*
*
*
END SPOILER

I for one would like to see other authors experimenting as well, finally putting their beloved, but overworked characters to rest. and take a change of pace.

Any comments people?

[azaz]

Tad Williams is a good author at creating world. Ostan Ard, Otherland, and the new Shadow March.

I agree with much of what you say. But if the Author has an excellent story, Characters etc then I don't mind. But once they finish a series and start a new one, I do prefer a new world, new creativity, new creatures, new lands etc. I beleive that some authors it is hard to do so, for they have created a world, and in there mind it is extremely detailed. To create a new setting, takes more time, and some may not be creative enough and end up using 60% of the old setting, and only 40% new.

Another author I like is Dave Duncan, who i think is good at creating new settings, in every series.

[MajicK]

I think that when an author's takes on the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude, he/she is selling out. Sure, going from a triology set in one world to "-X Title- the continuation of -X Author's- 's best-selling -X Saga-" on to "-X Title- the hidden world behind the trilogy" to "-X Title- kids: the trials and tribulations of -X Land- 's adventurous youths will sell numerous copies, but one has to lose a little respect for an author who does this. I did when Feist dragged out the Riftwar saga to no end...and he's still trying to milk it! I mean come ON, even Rocky stopped after VI! My own feeling is that some authors force themselves to put out books at fixed intervals, which IMOHO isn't how it should be. Such actions make me cry out in frustration, probably because I nearly always finish a book, even one I find dreadful. But I don't think a change of scenery is absolutely necessary. We've been on Earth for quite some time, and it's still constantly meting out interesting stories. If an author cannot write anything original, however, that is entirely different. Such an author should not be writing until he or she gets his or her writing block cleared. I'll just end it with this fitting, if not cliche saying: "What's right is not always popular and what's popular is not always right." So, authors, please do what is right, not what has proven a popular sell in the past.

[Cadfael]

Hmmm... just want to raise a point about the Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms and Ravenloft worlds. These worlds were created for AD&D gamers, and then authors began to base books in these worlds. The authors have to follow the 'rules' of these worlds, it is also way some of the books in the respective series can be very weak, because different authors with different styles are writing the books.

This takes away the onus of world building from the author. This may or may not be a good thing. For instance, they have to work within the constraint of the world as regards to magic, gods, cities and so on. Which I am sure must be hard at times.

The other side of the coin is, they are not honing their world creation skills, and are copping out to a certain extent.

As regards to the up and down nature of the books, take The Meetings Sextet, this series is a prequel to the Dragonlance Chronicles series by Weis and Hickman. However, all the six book in the series have different authors, and none of the Weis or Hickman. Thus some of the books are very good, but others really bad. However new authors useing these worlds do help to keep them fresh to a certain extent.

[sueVee]

. "I wonder if some of the lack of freshness of the newer Feist, Brooks and Goodkind books is down to their being placed in the same setting as a zillion other books."

I think that the staleness is because these authors (including Jordan and Eddings) have milked their characters not neccessarily the worlds. When you first read their books you become emotionally vested in the characters because they are new and touch some link. However these authors continue to recycle the same characters with the same descriptions. All the heroines are beautiful with long hair, the men young and skilled, and with only one thought -finish the quest and get together with the girl. After awhile the freshness wears off and the books become interchangeable.

I do agree with the "sense of satisfaction" needed at the end of a book or trilogy. I think that when the author is new you are satisfied with the original books. Then when new books in the series are published you have higher expectations. When those expectations are not met then the author is put down, both physically and emotionally. He is the same author, the story is the same, you just have read it before and know the ending. So you get bored.

[This message has been edited by sueVee (edited July 19, 2001).]

[Shadowen]

I think Guy Gavriel Kay is a good example of a writer trying different worlds with each new book. Tigana, A Song for Arbonne and the Lions of Al Rassan are all stand alone novels set in completely different worlds.

His 2 series, The Fionavar Tapestry and The Sarantine Mosaic are also set in completely new locations/worlds - Fionavar, a medieval type setting and Sarantium, a Byzantine (or is it Greek - can't remember) environment.

You know you're going to get a really fresh, new read from GGK when a new book comes out.

Any one know if there's more to come from this author?

[Barbarossa]

Actually Lions of Al Rassan and the Saratine mosaic are set in the same world, if different corners and different times (the Saratine mosaic several centuries earlier).

Here the link to the GGK website (Worth a visit anyway):
http://www.brightweavings.com/news/index.htm

[Shehzad]

When I mean setting I guess it encompasses everything- world, characters, magic, creatures etc. But sueVee made an interesting point about characters... once the same or similar keep on doing the same things it does get tiring.

Is anyone other than me disappointed at the way some writers end their characters?
****SPOILERS AHEAD******
DRAGONS OF SUMMER FLAME
*
*
*
*
Did Tanis really have to die like that. When Sturm died it seemed to have a purpose, his death really made sense. It was tragic and heroic. But Tanis?? OOPS??? Is that any way for a Hero of the Lance, the one who faced up to Takhisis and to Lord Soth, killed by mistake??? I felt like oopsing Weis and Hickman there and then.
*
*
FEIST SERPENTWAR
And there's a wholescale massacre of heroes here. Sometimes it seems as if Feist is thinking up new ways to get rid of his characters. Arutha at least goes out with dignity... the others, not so much
*
*
*
END SPOILERS

After the author has invested so much in these characters, and the reader getting an emotional attachment to them, they deserve a good death - a heroes' death.

About dennizm's point
[QUOTE]The authors have to follow the 'rules' of these worlds, it is also way some of the books in the respective series can be very weak, because different authors with different styles are writing the books.{/QUOTE]
I actually like some of these books. But what i don't like is series written by multiple authors - they seem to lack internal consistency. As an example, the Horselords trilogy was written by 3 different authors and ended up pathetically. Same goes for the Avatar trilogy.

And yes, Tad Williams and Guy Gavriel Kay were two other examples that I would have quoted... unfortunately I haven't read more than one series by each.

An exception to the rule: Terry Pratchett still is writing fresh, interesting novels 26 books into his series...

[Cannon Fodder]

Sometimes I like it when characters are killed in a low key kind of way. It can seem a bit contrived and clched when the death of every character 'means' or 'achieves' something. I kind of prefer it when death is presented as unheroic and pointless. That way the death of the character one may have liked or have been reading about can be a lot more effective.

Back to the main topic, I'd have to agree, many fantasy authors such as Fiest, could really do with getting off their arses and creating new worlds. When they draw out a series, in one way or another, it frequently means the world and characters you used to like go down in your opinion. The original stuff, might still be good but the lesser stuff that follows always seems to drag down that which it has followed. Fiest is a good example of this, these crappy new Krondor books are only tarnishing my memories of the original riftwar series. In my opinion, it would be better if he went off and wrote something completely different for a few years and then did some new Midkemia stuff. After a few years break the world, the characters and the series might seem fresher. That way it might be more a pleasure to revisit old characters etc. instead of thinking ho-um, another one.

[FitzChivalry]

Well, about Feist, the whole 5 Riftwar series were planned from the beginning (yes 5, there will be 3 more), so you can assume you are going to see a lot more of Midkemia.
What wasn't planned is the filler books and the Empire books.
The books originiated in an RPG Feist and friends used to play in the world of Midkemia, the present of that games is many years in the future from where we are now in the books, what we are reading is the history of that world, and Feist's intention from the start was to write all the way to the present time of the games.

-possible spoiler-

Btw, from what i know of the game, The Kingdom of The Isles doesn't exist anymore or is totally shattered somehow, so you can expect the good guys to lose some fights in the future of the series...

[This message has been edited by FitzChivlary (edited July 20, 2001).]