Martin, Erikson, Jordan..Am I missing something??

[Bastard]

Seems like you might enjoy something is more fun and entertaining. Maybe try some things like:

Vlad Taltos
Eli Monpress
Tales of the Ketty Jay
City of Dreams and Nightmare
Shadows of the Apt
Codex Alera
Shadow's Son
Gentlemen Bastards

Something in there should be to your liking.

 

[Pvt]

not to digress from your perfectly valid point, that this is a fairly hard-geek-core group etc etc, but i think there is good evidence to say that adulation for your author list is far from universal here.

true, there are few serious detractors from Tolkien, and GRRM is widely embraced. but from what i've seen Erikson and Hobb have much softer support, here and in general, and i'd include myself in the "less enthusiastic" part of that crowd. ditto for a number of the other "big" names bandied about on these forums, but that's beside the immediate point.

But notice even the detractors will often not make outright complaints or criticisms of these same authors. If they even criticise them at all they'll quickly contrast it with as many positive points as possible, alot of which seems made up to me even if they really believe it.

[begin rant]

as i read it Winghead's point was to question the widespread praise for the three named authors and question his difficulty if finding what was so great about them. i've been reading fantasy for almost forty years and frankly i agree, i have the same trouble.

i don't see the point in pressing through 100s of pages of uninspiring work to find the supposed treasures buried elsewhere. who's got the time for that? is it just because they couldn't find anything to watch on TV? for my money that's just bad or mediocre writing: either cut the padding and crap or be judged on the dreck you've left for us to wade through.

as i see it part of the reason our beloved genre is treated like the unwelcome cousin of the literary world is that we as fantasy readers are so universally undemanding and accepting of sub-par efforts. few other fields of work are excused with things like "you've got to get past the first 250 pages, then it really starts to get pretty okay". seriously? do people really have that much spare time on their hands?

imagine if you asked about a new film and people said "don't worry so much about staying awake that first hour, the second hour has some really great scenery." what would be the chances that you'd ever bother to give it a second thought, never mind shelling out your time and money to see it?

This is something I don't understand myself. I've criticized certain books in the past only to have fans start commenting on how characters finally develop and the story really picks up as I continue to read several more books. What!? You mean the author needs several books just to develop and advance his or her characters and the plot properly, and I should judge them as a whole rather than on the one book I read? What kind of nonsense is this? The one I love is, if you don't understand the first book and it seems confusing keep reading more. lol.

i think fantasy lit needs to be held to higher standards than "read half of it just so you can read the other half of it". in screenwriting there's a general rule that if you don't have your audience "by the balls" in the first five pages (5 minutes) then you don't have them at all. something like that might be a good thing for us fantasy readers.

personally i give a book or series 50 pages, very generous imo, and if it's not happening by then i'm done. i know no one really cares a fig about my particular way of reading -- nor should they -- but my point is that good writing should be good pretty much from the start, not after 100s of pages of unedited bumff.

so yeah, some of the oft applauded shouldn't be, at least not so much. but then again maybe fantasy readers in general just have longer lives and lower standards than other folks.

[end rant]

From what I've noticed fans are becoming more demanding, but not for better characters or story. Many of the books praised here and on other fantasy boards are often very thin on characterization or plot or both.

 

[End Of Disc One]

First of all Radiohead is far from perfect. In fact Sigur Ros does "Radiohead" style music far better than Radiohead.

On the surface maybe. Two of my favorite bands, and while Sigur Ros has the beautiful epics loaded with instrumentals, Radiohead is still a bit better. Something about Thom Yorke's songwriting is just brilliant to me, and Radiohead has more lasting power than any other band I've heard. Sigur Ros is better in small doses.

But anyway to the guy who said it's poor writing to make the reader struggle through the first couple of hundred pages, I say the books that require more effort from the reader usually have a bigger payoff. Sort of like how you have to listen to most Radiohead albums ten times before you start to enjoy them. But if you just want to listen to Kings of Leon and Muse because you can enjoy them on a first listen, knock yourself out.

 

[Aktunka]

I thought the exact same thing (as the OP) about the Wheel of Time when I first started reading it. It wasn't until around page 100 when they finally start moving that the story picked up. All the stuff in the village at the beginning is pretty damn boring up until the catalyst event.

 

[barfly]

... I say the books that require more effort from the reader usually have a bigger payoff.

good to hear that has been your experience but for me that has rarely been true. i wish i had back the hours i've spent pressing through lame starts to find that they were only followed by worse middles and appalling endings.

 

[Michigan]

This is something I don't understand myself. I've criticized certain books in the past only to have fans start commenting on how characters finally develop and the story really picks up as I continue to read several more books. What!? You mean the author needs several books just to develop and advance his or her characters and the plot properly, and I should judge them as a whole rather than on the one book I read? What kind of nonsense is this? The one I love is, if you don't understand the first book and it seems confusing keep reading more. lol.

I think this only really applies to Erikson if only because the first book was written 10 years before the rest and it shows. You don't get a true feel for the series from the first book. I guess you could simply skip right to Deadhouse Gates if you really wanted to, then if you liked it go back and read GOTM as a prequel.

 

[fluffy bunny]

Those authors don't suit all readers. Personally I couldn't get into Jordan and Erikson. Based on your preferences for Harry Potter, Dresden and Brooks try books such as Hobb's Farseer Trilogy and Lynch's Gentlemen Bastards sequence.

It's a matter of trial and error when you start with a new genre. Just be aware that your tastes may change with time so don't discount going back and trying the ones you mentioned again at a later date

 

[barfly]

... the first book was written 10 years before the rest and it shows.

that's an excellent point and something i hadn't known. i had tried and tossed GOTM but maybe Deadhouse deserves a look as you suggest.

 

[Third Eye]

On the surface maybe. Two of my favorite bands, and while Sigur Ros has the beautiful epics loaded with instrumentals, Radiohead is still a bit better. Something about Thom Yorke's songwriting is just brilliant to me, and Radiohead has more lasting power than any other band I've heard. Sigur Ros is better in small doses.

But anyway to the guy who said it's poor writing to make the reader struggle through the first couple of hundred pages, I say the books that require more effort from the reader usually have a bigger payoff. Sort of like how you have to listen to most Radiohead albums ten times before you start to enjoy them. But if you just want to listen to Kings of Leon and Muse because you can enjoy them on a first listen, knock yourself out.

Kings of Leon and Muse? Brother we have very different musical tastes

I do completely agree with your statement of the books that require a bit of effort and/or patience have the bigger payoff. I guess some people just want explosions starting at page one. Then again authors like Abercrombie can do both. Look at how The Blade Itself started out.

 

[End Of Disc One]

Kings of Leon and Muse? Brother we have very different musical tastes

Lol I was just mentioning a couple of crappier, catchier bands.

 

[Third Eye]

Lol I was just mentioning a couple of crappier, catchier bands.

I don't want to go too far off topic here but OK Computer is a remarkable album from start to finish. I am not the worlds biggest Radiohead fan but that album was fantastic.

 

[End Of Disc One]

I don't want to go too far off topic here but OK Computer is a remarkable album from start to finish. I am not the worlds biggest Radiohead fan but that album was fantastic.

Agreed about not getting off topic, but I was talking about KoL and Muse being crappier.

 

[Third Eye]

Agreed about not getting off topic, but I was talking about KoL and Muse being crappier.

Oh I agree. I was just mentioning that Radiohead's OK Computer is an outstanding album.

Getting back on topic again I highly recommend Abercrombie's First Law Trilogy. It starts off with a bang. Fantastically written battle scenes. Has plenty of action and magic while being a far better written and more complex story than anything Brooks has written.

 

[ebusinesstutor]

I admit, I have only recently started reading fantasy. I had read Harry Potter and LOTR, but never really bothered to look further in to the genre. I also read a couple Dresden books and thought they were fun. Upon looking at these boards, I noticed that the series that seem to be the most integral, or essential are George Martin's Song of Ice and Fire, Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time (mixed reviews but still essential) and Steven Erikson's Malazan series.

I haven't been able to make it through the first 100 pages of any of these first books without losing interest, yet I find myself devouring Terry Brooks' Shannara series without being able to put them down. Am I missing something? Is it just a matter of taste? I feel like the music fan that doesn't get modern Radiohead while the rest of the world is calling them brilliant and perfect.

I am a long term fantasy reader and my reaction is the same as yours. I have never liked Jordan's books and I tried the Game of Thrones series by Martin. Well written, but too many characters, so I found it difficult to follow.

On the other hand, like you, I enjoyed Terry Brooks Shannara series.

We are allowed to have personal preferences. My brother and best friend both read sci/fi and fantasy, but our favorite books are quite different.

So it is not just you.

 

[chris777]

I love not following a series, and finally understanding something. That's why I think people read fantasy. It's FANTASY. Think about it, you can't just enter an author's world w/out him taking several pages to show you how it works and how people think. If it was written in modern America you wouldn't really need half a book in world building. But fantasy you do, and that's one reason I love it.

I also watch a lot of TV shows. I have some friends who do as well. And we all have pretty much the same motto for starting a series...any series. You need to give it a certain amount of time. 4 1hour episodes, or 8 30min episodes...ish....before i decide I won't watch it anymore. Unless of course I think it's HORRIBLE...
That being said, the same is true for reading. In an epic scale series like malazan or wot, you have to AT LEAST read the first half of the first book, or even the whole first, before saying yes or no. In my opinion. ASOIAF, the prologue is boring as hell. I tried reading it once, and quit because it was so boring, then kept being told to read on. And I finished the first book loving it. And it might have even toppled WOT as my fav series if GRRM would finish. I haven't read Malazan, but I plan to soon.

 

[Evil Agent]

Just gotta chime in and say that Radiohead is phenomenal. Everything from OK Computer onwards is genius (Kid A, in particular). They're definitely in my Top 10 bands.

 

[Michigan]

that's an excellent point and something i hadn't known. i had tried and tossed GOTM but maybe Deadhouse deserves a look as you suggest.

Don't get me wrong, it's still confusing and definitely not for everyone but I was very on the fence about the series after GOTM, gave Deadhouse Gates a shot and loved it. Definitely a better written novel. And it only shares like 3 characters with GOTM, makes it easier to skip over the first book since you are mostly starting from scratch anyways.

 

[barfly]

fwiw, saying one shouldn't have to read 100s of pages to start feeling a pulse does not mean that a book/series has to a "grabber" from page one. i think we all more or less agree that a little transition time is required. the question is "how much?" and that's where i see that we have a wide range of opinions.

imo, giving a (novel) writer 50 pages to grab my interest is not unreasonable. i can read that over tea so it's no biggie in terms of a time investment. on the other hand i don't think it's unreasonable to expect the author to care enough about such things to start the ball rolling in that time.

personally i've read 1000s of manuscripts -- albeit in screenplay format -- and it's almost always the rookies, the timid and the confused that can't get their story off to a reasonable start in a modest amount of time. i'm not saying that all novels should be screenplays and start the fireworks on page one but i am saying that a little discipline in terms of the story telling is a good thing.

any author who assumes that i'm going to read 500+ pages before i can make a decision about their book/series/whatever has lost at least one reader: me. maybe it's because i'm a fairly slow reader and those 500 pages are going to take me a week to get through. maybe it's because i believe that the author should be able to get their act together within a modest number of pages.

whatever the reason, i do believe the writer needs to give me a reason to pay money and spend time on their vision. just because an author has some cool ideas and will eventually get around to telling me about it does not mean they are worth reading. in fact if they are one of those writers who thinks their stuff is so cool that i should have to read 100s of pages of other crap to start getting the point then they aren't much of a story teller, at least not yet. maybe a little effort tightening the thing up is exactly what they didn't bother doing and that's pretty much my point: they should, and i think we should demand it of them.

of course i realize that others feel quite differently about this. personally i suspect it's the feedback effect of TV on prose: people grow up watching pretty vacuous time-killing stuff on TV so i guess it's natural that they'd be willing to accept more or less the same when they pick up a book. but really, look back at most of fantasy novels from 20-30 years ago: those writers often managed to do a 5 or 6 novel series in 1200 pages, never mind the first book or so. i'm not saying those were the best fantasy novels ever written but they were able to tell a story without writing a doorstop.

 

[Bond]

All the points made criticizing the three series mentioned are valid. But it does not negate the following fact: a great many people will list at least one of the aforementioned series as their favorite fantasy series. Now you either determine that you don't share the same taste in fantasy series or appreciate them in the same way as all these other people or acknowledge you simply haven't tried them in the recommended manner.

 

[Werthead]

Just gotta chime in and say that Radiohead is phenomenal. Everything from OK Computer onwards is genius (Kid A, in particular). They're definitely in my Top 10 bands.

On the point of tastes differing, my favourite Radiohead album is The Bends and I think their best song is 'Street Spirit'. I feel they peaked at that moment, although OK Computer was very nearly as good. With a fair few exceptions, I've generally found a lot of their material since then to be akin to listening to monkeys having epileptic fits whilst playing keyboards. Enough people coo over the stuff to make me realise I'm probably missing something there, but I'm also strongly of the opinion you shouldn't have to read/listen to something ten times to 'get it'. That suggests a failure of the artist rather than the consumer.

Relating that back to the original question, the three series are rather different beasts but are similar in being very long, and the authors take the first 200-odd pages of each series just to clear their throats. I disagree that you need to read say two whole books from each series to see if you like it (and whilst Erikson's writig ability improves radically, his writing style is pretty similar throughout), though you can just chuck Gardens of the Moon if necessary and start with Deadhouse Gates, which has a mostly different cast and is set on a separate continent. IIRC, in the first 100 pages of The Eye of the World the team hasn't even left the Two Rivers yet, whilst the first 'major event' of A Game of Thrones which grabs the reader happens around p.100, depending on edition. Before that it can be a little confusing (I didn't really 'get' GoT until I was a couple hundred pages into Book 2, although I liked it enough to read on).