Authors you like but the majority loathes!

I haven't read Eddings in years but at the time I was a big fan.

I loved early Jordan, even though the books at times irked me with their many flaws. Later Jordan books bored the hell out of me though. I don't think i'm in the minority with this opinion though.

I love Kay, especially Al Rassan. Hated Fionavar though, couldn't even finish the first book.

I used to like Brooks, read his early Shannara and Magical Kingdom books. He lost me in his second Shannara series though.

I hate Goodkind, but who doesn't.

Ericksons writing bothers me, it is so poor and some of his characters suck. And it's not easy to follow either. On the other hand his worldbuilding is excellent and he hasn't bored me yet. I just hope he doesn't go the Jordan route, and Jordan started with so much more promise.

On the whole I think i'm pretty mainsteam in my tastes.
 
Quote:
I find it funny and sad that most of the authors listed so far are all bestselling authors. Sounds to me like you're all a bunch of closet elitists if you truly believe that the majority of fantasy readers loathe those authors.

You're sort of missing the point of the thread, dude. As I said earlier, bestselling authors are greatly loved, but also greatly hated, and fans of these books often get flack for liking them and saying that they do. I believe you are familiar with that experience. So we're talking about books that many people say should not be bestsellers, but which we like, and books which many people praise, but we didn't get into. Mid-list authors, it's a little harder to talk about on this issue, as many people have no clue who they are, much less whether they hate or love them. We really only can talk about bestsellers when it comes to this issue. There's nothing elitist about it. We're saying we liked the books.
Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Lowlander, I think it's great that you like Lord of the Isles by David Drake. Could you elaborate on why you like them even though many. many people (me included) don't.

Great example btw of liking a book that many people don't=)

Miramele: I also couldn't get through Susan Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. I got around 150 pages in and still I was totally uninterested in the characters. I was especially saddened by this as the book was so hyped and praise was showered over it like confetti on a wedding...
 
Alex said:
I also couldn't get through Susan Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. I got around 150 pages in and still I was totally uninterested in the characters. I was especially saddened by this as the book was so hyped and praise was showered over it like confetti on a wedding...
Click to expand...

ditto. as uninteresting as uninteresting gets.
 
Alex, about me liking Lord of the Isles.

Earlier this year there was a discussion about all the hate feelings surrounding this series. You can find this thread under the name "Lord of the Isles : why so much hate " using the search option of this forum.
 
I'm also not sure that there's exactly a consensus here, but I'll start by addressing the two biggies here - SoT and WoT. I liked the first few books of SoT, and it actually took me until about book 6 until I was really turned off by what I was reading. And as regards WoT, I like the idea rather than the execution of the series. There were a lot of fascinating aspects to WoT that got killed or smothered by unnecessary subplots and descripiton (imho).

Another author I think many people really like is Stephen R. Donaldson. I have tried a few books, and I just can't really appreciate them. Then again, I think people have strong reactions to the Thomas Covenant books, so I may be with those people that have a strong negative reaction.

I have also tried Terry Brooks, and mistakenly began with Sword of Shannara, which I didn't like. I also read a more recent work, Armageddon's Children, and while the writing was definitely better, I still didn't really appreciate the book and didn't continue reading the trilogy.

And then there's all those people who enjoyed Karen Miller's Innocent Mage, and I had some issues with it that got in the way of my enjoyment. I couldn't finish it, but read the end to see what happened anyway.

An author I like that no one else really seems to is Sherwood Smith. I read Inda and The Fox and thought they were amazing, but no one else seems to know they so much as exist. I also enjoyed Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn, and I also liked his sort of contemporary fantasy War of the Flowers. I couldn't get into his Otherland works at all, but I don't generally read much SF anyway. I also really enjoyed Kate Elliot's Crown of Stars series, and I feel that most people have a lukewarm reaction to it because of its length and descriptive nature.

I can't think of anything else at the moment, maybe further discussion will kick-start my memory.
 
I loved The Fox and Inda. I picked up both because I thought it was a completed duology. Chagrinned to find it's a trilogy, but both books were very good. Of course, I'm a sucker for military academy/pirate books anyway.
 
KatG said:
J.K. Rowling is, I think, the richest or second richest person in Britain, but she's not in the top batch for richest woman in the world.
Click to expand...

I might have been incorrectly informed. A few days ago my dad told me about a show he watched, where Forbes Magazine listed Oprah Winfrey as the richest woman in the world with a net worth of $1.5 billion, and J.K. Rowling in second position with $1 billion. Perhaps it was only richest entertainers though.

Any way you look at it, the woman has been very successful.
 
Since I joined the forum I've really only taken note of two authors works that get flamed in a passionate manner. WoT and SoT.
I have to say I find it odd - the flamers make it clear that they've read the authors they dislike extensively. That just doesn't compute.
I can understand a moderate amount of criticism in a series you keep reading, but the passion of the criticisms I've seen at times shocked me.
Why would people keep reading a series they dislike that much?
Click to expand...

Well, we had a thread on this actually. The majority of people who didn't like the two series started out liking the one they read, or at least being interested in it, then got dissatisfied as the series went on. There are others, though, who are very passionate about the whole genre and so read the series even though they hate the books, to see how bad it is for them and to be informed. It's something you get only in fantasy fandom, unique to us. :)

Myself, I will read a book that is being much talked about or sold to find out about it -- preferrably by library borrowing -- but if I don't like the book or am just lukewarm about it, I won't read on. So I only read the first SOT book because I didn't get into it. I only read the first Steve Erikson book Gardens of the Moon, but I may go back to that one. I had a similar experience with Martha Wells, who many people like, and after reading the first part of Mary Gentle's Ash: A Secret History, which a lot of people like (and which has some similarities with Clarke's novel,) I felt no need to read further, though I like Gentle's writing overall.

As for WOT, I've overall loved the series, though a volume or two was draggy in spots. The one book I did not was Crossroads, which was awful and repetitive, but the overall story has given me much more than it's tanked. I like a lot of Tad Williams' work, but I thought War of the Flowers was a failed novel for many reasons and his newest series I couldn't get into at all. I thought the style he was using was totally unappealing for me. I'm not happy, as many fans are not happy, with the direction Laurell K. Hamilton's Anita Blake series took, even though all the sexual material is directly tied into the plot and as such not technically gratuitous, but I've decided to stick it out because I like the characters so much and when she gets the mystery and action going, she's quite excellent for me.

Susannah Clarke's mix of Charles Dickens with P.G. Wodehouse in Strange and Norrell is something people either like or they don't. Me, I love the British authors, so I loved it. I liked the themes and thought the characterizations were wonderful, but for some people, they may not have been into the scenario of the plot.

I'm going to put Smith on my reading list. I like pirates too. :) See Chris, I was wrong. We can talk about mid-list authors too. So we're no longer being elitist and you can join in on the conversation, as long as you stop with the name calling, which as you know is against the rules you agreed to follow.

I might have been incorrectly informed. A few days ago my dad told me about a show he watched, where Forbes Magazine listed Oprah Winfrey as the richest woman in the world with a net worth of $1.5 billion, and J.K. Rowling in second position with $1 billion. Perhaps it was only richest entertainers though.
Click to expand...

Got to be the richest entertainers. The richest women I believe are almost all in Japan.
 
The article you are referencing is, I think, in the December 8th issue of Forbes and is the Richest Women in Entertainment, therefore their names have a high recognition value. Money published an article at the first of this year that listed the richest women in the world, and as one would expect, they are business people with stock in major corporations. Three of the top 10 are relatives of Sam Walton. I don't recall any of them being from Japan. I think #1 on the list was someone who owns a big chunk of L'Oreal.

Anyway... to be on topic, I can't think of a fantasy author I love that others tend to dislike. Maybe a few underappreciated ones from a reader's perspective (in my mind, not quite the same thing) such as Sarah Monette.

For mainstream fiction, I really haven't ever taken to anything Follett has written, and disliked Pillars of the Earth immensely (but I'm answering the opposite question in using him as an example). I do however have a fondness for Robert Ludlum, in spite of flaws which I recognize.

I will admit to being a bit of a contrarian in my reading habits, though. I usually won't try a book during the height of its initial popularity, especially if it is ovelry hyped. I wear my hyper-critical hat when reading those type of books, and I often feel like I'm being unfair. When I wait until the dust settles and try them long after other people have moved on and stopped commenting on them, I tend to enjoy them for what they are and am far more forgiving.
 
I very much enjoyed Brooks' first 7 Shannara books. After that, it felt like more of the same. I'm still not exactly sure what people hate about them so much. Yes, he had elves and dwarves, but so what. He had many ideas that were all his own, so I wasn't bothered.

I enjoyed the first 2 WoT books, but can't bring myself to read any farther. I lose respect for authors when they extend a series to make money (or even if they extend a series for various other, equally pointless reasons). I think he should have condensed the entire series to about 8 books.
 
I'll have to go with John Marco, I loved the series. I was even inspired to email the guy:)
 
I just thought of one in the love/hate camp. I love Hal Duncan's stuff, but recognize some of the weaknesses those who hate his style cite. However, it makes no difference to me. I still love reading it. Some authors are an acquired taste, I think, and still others are perhaps deliciously linked to the sins of our reading youth and for sentimental reasons we hold them dear and grant them further leeway than we would of other authors.
 
An author that I liked, but doesn't seem to popular around these parts: John Marco. I loved the idea of the flame cannons. Cannons are pretty cool to begin with, but making them shoot flames is cool. The trench warfare tactics was kinda neat too, not something you see too often in fantasy. Not to mention Biaggio, best character in the series.

As for an author that I dont like that others seem to like a lot: Robin Hobb. I read the Assassin series, and thought it was really boring and frogettable. Fitz was a dullard, and the fact that the story was told first person thorugh his eyes made it more boring.
 
Reading_fanatic said:
Lord of the Rings- Before i get killed over this I loved the Hobbit but could never get more than halfway through the Two towers.
Click to expand...

The second part of the Two Towers is probably the slowest part of the entire LOTR story, and that feeling is compounded by the fact that it follows right on the heels of the action-filled adventures of Pippin, Merry, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli and Aragorn in Rohan in the first part. Although it does end on a high note with Shelob's Lair.

The Return of the King is much better once you get over that part.
 
KatG said:
The majority of people who didn't like the two series started out liking the one they read, or at least being interested in it, then got dissatisfied as the series went on. There are others, though, who are very passionate about the whole genre and so read the series even though they hate the books, to see how bad it is for them and to be informed. It's something you get only in fantasy fandom, unique to us. :)
Click to expand...

That's not a very reassuring picture. To be informed of what? Their own
opinion?
Reading between the lines, it sounds like you're saying some people will keep reading books they don't like, expressly for the purpose of denigrating them? For whose benefit? The people who do like those books?
Doesn't compute.
Live and let live!
People who like a book are going to like it no matter what anyone says. People who don't - same thing.
So why the need to post a dislike so vehemently on the boards?
Why not simply turn your back on what you don't like and let those who do like them, like them?
Do they actually think they're going to convert some people to their way of thinking or are they just looking for a fight?
 
Last edited:
Interesting topic. Kudos to whoever started it. ;)
Among the ones that I like that alot of folk seem to dislike are;

Tad Williams' "Memory Sorrow and Thorn": I have expressed many times that this is my favorite fantasy saga of all time, even better than Tolkien's LOTR. Yes, I know, blasphemy, but Tolkien's LOTR, as awesome as it was, just didn't blow me away like MS&T did. Alot of folks seem to dislike it since it's really long and dragging during the beginning to about halfway of book 1 The Dragonbone Chair, and I must admit I almost was tempted to put the book down myself, permanently, but I held on for just a little while longer, and I was completely blown away.

Tad Williams' "Otherland": This blew me away almost as much as MS&T did. People seem to dislike it for the same reasons they dislike MS&T; mainly the pacing, but once again, if you just hold on for a bit and be patient with it, you'll be taken on the thrill ride of your life. Also, I've heard people didn't like it because they don't like sci-fi mixed in with their fantasy. This isn't an issue with me, so it didn't bother me.

Robert E. Howard's Conan Tales: I love Conan! I can't stress just how much I love Howard's tales of him! In my opinion, Conan is the greatest fantasy/sword and sorcery hero ever created. I've known a majority of people that find the stories to be incredibly cheesy and juvenile, and it turns them off, but from what I'm now seeing, opinions are starting to turn around about the Saga of Conan. Maybe it's because he's being revived through popular video games, maybe it's because newer video game series such as God of War and Prince of Persia are bringing back the blood and thunder/ sword and sorcery style of Howard's tales, along with movies like Gladiator, The 13th Warrior, The 300, Pathfinder, and the upcoming 10,000 B.C. Maybe it's because more recent fantasies are reflecting their Howardian roots, as I've heard. I won't question it, I'll just be thankful, as the old saying goes. ;) And by the way, a new Conan film is confirmed for 2009, which is going to be more true to Howard's tales this time, and a Solomon Kane trilogy and a Bran Mak Morn film have also been confirmed for those of you who didn't know.

"Tyrants and Kings" by John Marco: I honestly don't understand why this trilogy is so underrated and why so many people dislike it. As one other here said, the books were so great, I was moved to email John Marco, and he wrote back, and he was one of the kindest guys I had ever talked to. He answered all my questions, even the question of whether he would like it to be made into a movie, to which he answered, if they ever get popular enough, he would like them to be made into anime-style films.

Weis & Hickman's "Dragonlance Chronicles and Legends Trilogies": There was a time when alot of people loved these trilogies. For some reason, and I don't know why, the approval rate has gone down.

R.A. Salvatore's "Drizzt Series": I'd say this series has a pretty divided view, it seems almost to be straight down the middle, almost as if you either like it, or you hate it. I, of course, am of the former. I'm just blown away by all the well-choreographed battle scenes, the adventure, and the just plain fun of it. It seems these days though, the opposing opinion is becoming stronger from those who think it's too cheesy and juvenile. Some folks just don't like too read books for the fun factor anymore, I guess.

Now to the books that I dislike that everyone else seems to like:

"The Belgariad" by David Eddings: Now I hear alot of you out there saying, "WHAT?! You must have it mixed around!" No, I realize that there is a strong anti-Eddings mentality on this forum, and I assure you, I'm with it, but even those who say they dislike Eddings will admit that they liked "The Belgariad". I'm sorry, but I didn't like even that. The first three books were allright, but at book four it all went to hell. Polgara, Belgarion, and especially C'Nedra annoyed the crap outta me! Belgarath the Sorcerer seemed like a powerful mage that could have set all wrongs to right rather quickly and kicked Torak's ass six ways to Sunday, but chose not to for a plot device. Sorry, but I just don't care for Eddings. Period.

"Lord Foul's Bane" by Stephen R. Donaldson:I'd always heard great things about this book and the whole Thomas Covenant series for that matter, proclaiming them to be fantasy masterworks. I picked up the two series in hope of a real treat, but I'm telling you, when I picked up and attempted to read this book, I got the biggest, most excruciating migraine I've ever had in my life!! The rape scene that most people are offended by didn't offend me one bit, instead it was page after page after page of intricate, almost OCD-like descriptions of blades of grass and trees, and an endless discourse on Covenant's inner turmoil. Now I don't mind inner turmoil and brooding in fantasy, Michael Moorcock did it excellently in the Elric Saga, as did Weis & Hickman with Raistlin in Dragonlance, but having it just go on and on and ooooooonnnnn..... **SIGH** :( I wondered if it was gonna get any better, if there was gonna be an epic battle or something, and the only one I saw was the battle between Covenant and those goblin-like creatures ( I forgot their name, something like Viles or something or other?) which I had too big of a blistering headache to enjoy. I almost didn't make it halfway when I decided to throw in the towel. I got to the part where Covenant made it to Kevin's Watch. So please tell me, does the series get any better? Are there any epic battles and awesome magic use or is it mainly full of Covenant's brooding and endless description of landscape? I would really appreciate someone letting me know because if it gets any better I will indeed pick it up again. But I don't wanna bother if it doesn't.

Stephen King's "The Dark Tower Book VII": The final installment in King's epic magnum opus irritated and disgusted me to no end! I absolutely loved books I-VI, but thought book VII was utter trash. King pretty much threw away all the magic and mysticism and western/medieval elements previously built up in this. I gave up halfway through and chucked the book across the room in disgust. Later, having a rather morbid sense of curiosity, I guess you could say, I looked up the spoilers to how the series ended on Wikipedia and found that it was even more horrible than I could have imagined! :mad: It was almost like King was giving a big f-you to his most devoted fans.
 
Macklyn said:
Do they actually think they're going to convert some people to their way of thinking or are they just looking for a fight?
Click to expand...

You've never seen a movie you didn't like and then ranted about it your friends? You've never had a bad date and ranted about it to your friends? I've known plenty of people that spent years ranting about a person they had an fall out with.

You're asking why readers stick with a 10 years long series after it's lost it's magic to them. Then I'll ask you why do 10 years old couples stay together after the love is gone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Sponsors


We try to keep the forum as free of ads as possible, please consider supporting SFFWorld on Patreon


Your ad here.
Back
Top