Terry Brooks

[chocky]

I've been recently thinking about Terry Books. I don't think he gets the recognition he deserves. Lately he has'nt written much of note, Phantom Menace movie tie-in and Shannara prequels., but the first three Shannara were pretty good and so was his Magic Kingdom for Sale series. I think back before Martin, Jones, Hobb and Jordan, he (and Donaldson, after of course JRR) introduced a lot of readers to fantasy. I concede that Brooks' work suffers in comparison to the aforementioned authors but I never would have read them if I did'nt read him first. After I finished LOTR and the Hobbit and wanted more, my brother handed me a copy of Sword of Shannara. I have not looked back since. It is not just me, many others I talk to were introduced to fantasy by Brooks. I guess what I am trying to say is that although he not be the writer he once was he should be remembered as something other than a hack.

I don't want to get into the argument that his work is too derivative of Tolkein. He wasn't the first and certainly not the last to be heavily influenced by Tolkein.

 

[ChrisW]

I tried reading his first book but gave up after about 100 or so pages.

I think though that your list should read Brooks, Eddings and Feist more than Brooks, Donaldson and Tolkien. A lot of people do read Tolkien but it doesn't exactly make you want to read more fantasy.

 

[LeMort]

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Terry Brooks. I liked his stuff when I was a little kid (so many years ago. Ah, the memories...) but I've long since grown out of it.

Saying that, I did kind of like his "Knight of the Word" sequence. Well, the first and third books, anyway.

 

[Rob B]

Originally posted by chocky
I've been recently thinking about Terry Books. I don't think he gets the recognition he deserves. Lately he has'nt written much of note, Phantom Menace movie tie-in and Shannara prequels.,

You're kidding right? You have to be. Brooks ALWAYS makes the NYT Bestseller list, though many here don't consider him the most original writer you can't argue the fact that he has a strong following and that he was THE FIRST fantasy author to hit the NYT Trade Paperback bestseller list.

As for lately, he just completed The Voyage of the Jerle Shannara trilogy.

 

[chocky]

Brooks ALWAYS makes the NYT Bestseller list, though many here don't consider him the most original writer you can't argue the fact that he has a strong following

It is true that he is still very popular but IMHO even though he always makes the NYT Bestseller list, the quality has suffered in recent years. The Voyage Of Jerle Shannara IMO is not nearly as good as his earlier work. It is as if he has run out of ideas and is still stuck in the world of Shannara. His continued popularity does not mean continued quality. He has a loyal fan base, I think, because of his earlier work. People continue to read him in hope he will write a novel as good or better.

he was THE FIRST fantasy author to hit the NYT Trade Paperback bestseller list.

That's my point. Brooks was the first contemporary fantasy writer since Tolkien to have such a wide appeal. He paved the way for the likes of BFF. When I was a kid in the early eighties, Brooks was at the top pf the heap leading many readers into fantasy. Kind of like Jordan today.

I think though that your list should read Brooks, Eddings and Feist more than Brooks, Donaldson and Tolkien.

It is true that for many years Eddings and Feist have introduced many people to fantasy.

 

[allanon]

I like Terry Brooks and I'm very happy that he is still very popular."Shannara" is highly enjoyable reading.

 

[computer]

can some one plz define for me what the different types of fantasy there is.

isn't Fiest's books high Fantasy?????

im a bit hazy of the definitions

cheers marc

 

[Elan Morin Tedronai]

Terry Brooks is one nice author, whom I admire much. I like his early works quite lot, but for his second Shannara Trilogy, I wouldn't say so good things - I couldn't finish 'er. But I can't critisize him, because he was the author who taught the modern fantasy giants, how to write for money. And that is the best motive to write one good Fantasy Saga, I'd say.

 

[Decado]

I simply don't like his writing style and find his stories and characters boring.

 

[Damaisius]

I always thought that Brooks early work was his best. In that I mean the sword, elfstones and wishsong of shannera. Persoanlly after that, with the scions and voyage, he overelaborated the universe adding new elements that suited him but turned away from the original idea of the world. Take the airships for example and the federation. Does anyone sympathise with this view. The same could be said for the magic kingdom series but that at least had some continuation within it - ie in one time frame. There is still a stark contrast between the first book and the last in the series however.

Does anyone think there is a line between expansion of a universe and exploitation? Has Brooks ever crossed it in his career? Or am I getting carried away into what I want Brooks' worlds to evolve into (which in many cases can happen). Then again I always try to remain in a sane mind....

 

[FlameSerpent]

Brooks is a get writer I have read a book or two of his and they were great. I need to commit some time to reading the whole series through.

 

[Lord Raziel]

I always thought that Brooks early work was his best. In that I mean the sword, elfstones and wishsong of shannera.

I agree that his earlier work was better , but his current work is still very well written and enjoyable just maybe not as new and fresh.

Persoanlly after that, with the scions and voyage, he overelaborated the universe adding new elements that suited him but turned away from the original idea of the world. Take the airships for example and the federation. Does anyone sympathise with this view.

My brother and I touched on this topic some time ago and we both realized that his books are on the right course. Think about it for a minute, the world changes. He explains that the four lands was originally our world right and it is thousands of years later after the nuclear holocaust caused by the third war. He shows the way that the races are formed and progress through time gaining knowlege. But what kind of knowlege, elemntal knowlege. Magic and herbal lore things that keep them in touch with the land. They don't remember or want to remember anything that had to do with technology.However over the years people and races start doing new things and coming up with ideas and inventing things. There are always people that have ideas and act upon them. How do you think we got to where we are today.

Now think about this we started out in much the same way except we had no previous fears to worry about. Look at the culture of the different ethnic groups. We all started out thousands of years ago with our ties to the land and our belief in magic. We were primitive and then we learned new things we grew as a race just as the world of the Four Lands. So don't you thonk its possible for them to invent and explore new areas. And that is what I think Mr. Brooks is saying that things will go around in a circle it is inevitable.

Does anyone think there is a line between expansion of a universe and exploitation? Has Brooks ever crossed it in his career?

I think there is a line between the expansion of a universe and explotation. However I don't think that Brooks is crossing that line. He is a writer thats what he does for a living. I think that he would be crossing that line if he continued putting out books that never show the advancment of the races of the Four lands. Things move forward not stanbd still.


Thats my take on the whole topic , maybe I rambled but if you have any further comments Id like to hear them.

 

[FlameSerpent]

I only read brooks first book and I guess it didn't grab me too much because I havent finished the series but I intend to at least see it through once im finished reading the RiftWar Saga again.

 

[Dallandra]

I've only read the first book yet, but it was great!

First I read about 200 pages of the book, then I got bored of it and read a lot of other books before I picked it up again a couple of days ago. I finnished it on the train to Helsinki

Now I'm trying to buy the second book, but it's not so easy to find it in swedish in any book stores!!

 

[Ouroboros]

Originally posted by chocky
I've been recently thinking about Terry Books. I don't think he gets the recognition he deserves. ....

...other than [as] a hack.

I don't want to get into the argument that his work is too derivative of Tolkein. He wasn't the first and certainly not the last to be heavily influenced by Tolkein.

If you are talking about why Brooks is not taken 'seriously' or regarded as a pillar of the genre in the same way as some other authors, I don't think you can examine the issue without the question of how derivative he is raising its ugly head.

You almost answered your own question at the end of your post, even if it is an unpalatable answer to many of his fans. He is a derivative hack: an immensely successful and fun one. It's true that he isn't the only one in the genre, but this is not necessarily an excuse.

 

[Lucky Joe]

The problem is (at least in my opinion) that as long as people continue to buy books based solely on the tiny chance that the latest book might be as good as some of the older stuff, authors will continue to churn out, hmm how to put it....s**t.

Don't get me wrong I'm as guilty of this as much as the next person, it took me about a year to read the Heritage of Shannara series and even though i could only bare to read a chapter or two at the most before ditching it and reading something else I always came back to it, EVEN THOUGH I KNEW THEY WERE DREADFUL AND DIDN'T CARE WHAT HAPPENED! And to make matters worse I'm guilty of buying the first of the Voyage of Jerle Shannara books. I admitt this is absolute insanity and I need to stop!

However to answer the original question the very first fantasy book i read was Sword of Shannara and at the time I loved it, 15 years later it's lost its appeal but it did introduce me to fantasy as did Eddings, who again doesn't stand up to much scrutiny now but at the time i loved the belgariad and read it about a dozen times.

I think Brooks and Eddings are ideal for younger readers as an introduction to fantasy but once you've read a few you MIGHT find yourself tiring of the 'same old' formula.

 

[cheese]

I personally didn't like his series at all. I read the sword of Shannara and basically thought it sucked lol. It was extremely predictable and similiar to Tolkien. His writing style isnt exactly what I look for in a book and he often over describes certain things. I think he gets enough recoginition

 

[sarandan0n]

Actually i liked the later books, the technological advancement making it more interesting. And Brooks (sorta) introduced me to fantasy too.

 

[Brys]

can some one plz define for me what the different types of fantasy there is.

isn't Fiest's books high Fantasy?????

im a bit hazy of the definitions

cheers marc

That's quite a lot you're asking there, but I'll do my best. First, here's the Wikipedia article on fantasy subgenres.

Feist counts as high/epic fantasy (which both effectively mean the same thing).
What the article doesn't mention is movements in fantasy, which are often used instead of subgenres to classify novels:
New Wave - the idea of the multiverse, or parallel universes or equivalent, involving characters which can move through it. Best examples are Moorcock's Elric and Zelazny's Amber.
New Weird - novels that show a lot of unexplained imagination, showing things that are completely unexpected. Often, they cite authors such as Peake, Lovecraft and Clark Ashton Smith as influences. Examples: China Mieville, Jeff Vandermeer, Steph Swainston.