What's the worst fantasy novel ever IYO?

[AuntiePam]

That explains it.

 

[Ingen_Jegger]

[size=+2]SPOILER WARNING[/size]

I think she resolved it quite well. In the end, Burrich was Burrich. He showed strength, and conviction, and love, for his children, for his wife, and for Fitz. In the end, he embraced that about himself which he rejected and hated, to save his son. Just as he did when he pulled Fitz out of the grave and brought him back to his body from Nighteyes. That resolved his biggest character dynamic and expressed his greatest strength. That because of love, he was able to push aside what he despised, to help those that he loved. Burrich, ever the protector, ended as the protector. I think the resolution is evident.

SPOILER!!!

I think Burrich died more to allow Robin Hobb a way to have Fitz go back with Molly without confrontation, a move done to side-step the dynamic between Fitz and the Fool that had gone on for all 9 books. She really did not deal with the love between them at all. One moment the whole series revolved around it, the next it was like "we are different, goodbye forever". and the book ended. Not a very good resolution in my mind to a fantastic series and great ongoing conflict.

Best,
Joe

 

[Firebrand]

Personally I liked Runelords, yes the magic was kinda weak, but I spent most of my time visualizing the endowment agumented battles, which must have been insane, more of a comic book kinda thing then normal fantasy lit. Also I mean it WAS inspired by a hallucination.

as for douglas, you can't blame her for the hades daughter plot, its just a stolen revamped version of troy, I liked her book under the hanging wall, the wayfarer redemption was allright but it fell off badly after the first book, and I'm still not sure what ordinary avar look like...

 

[Erfael]

Personally I liked Runelords, yes the magic was kinda weak

I thought the magic was the single most interesting things about these books. There were a great many ethical questions that had to be dealt with in regards to endowments and the liege/follower relationship. For once a magic system that had long-standing repercussions, not just an endless fount of power that users could tap.

 

[Memnoch]

This is easy...Dance of Demons without a shadow of a doubt. And they say bad things about Ed Greenwood...wait till you see this one.

Let me tell you - Gary Gygax definitely created the uber-munchkin concept with the culmination of his central character, Gord the Rogue, first introduced in Saga of Old City and Artifact of Ultimate Evil (I'll skip the descriptives for Gord and his cohorts as I'm assuming that if you've managed to get this far you know who they all are). Elminster seriously looks like a shrimp compared to this guy. At this stage of the saga (I think there are seven books ahead of it) Gord's still human (using that term very loosely), but he's got about a zillion innate powers and godlike abilities.

In one sequence he kills about two THOUSAND demons (I kid you NOT) by himself, while his partner (also human) kills another two thousand. All this happens in one encounter.

In another one he faces off with the Reaper, Nerull, Lord of Hades, also known as Infestix, also known as the supreme leader of the yugoloths (daemons) and kicks his ass.

Did I say that Gord, at this stage, is not even thirty years old?

Dance of Demons has to be the WORST book I've ever read - Gary, who is rightly regarded as the father of D&D, must've gone completely dry on ideas and penned this for the money. His former narrative brilliance, so much in evidence in Saga of Old City and Artifact of Ultimate Evil, raised hopes that he was one of the few D&D writers who could stand among the contemporary fantasy crowd (or to a young - at the time - muppet like myself, he seemed like one, anyway). But this book is a shocker. No suspense, no twists, nothing but Super-Gord cutting a swathe through every single thing. It's D&D munchkinism at its absolute worst.

Gord is now the Champion of Balance (Good and Evil are BOTH undesirable) and is IMPERVIOUS to defeat and demon lords like Graz'zt, Demogorgon, Mandrillagon and Orcus, as well as daemonkings like Anthraxus and Infestix, and the Dukes Infernal (Asmodeus and Co.) quail before his relentless onslaught. And YES, as I said before, he's still human.

And just what exactly can Super-Gord do? (Don't worry, these aren't spoilers as they are revealed in the first five pages of the book.) Well, he can communicate by telepathy. He can move to any place with a thought. He can drop off other wizards' radar and do the stealth bomber thing. His armor is lighter than air. He has a magic ring which when worn makes it impossible for anyone to hurt him either physically or magically. Since he supposed to be a thief, he has these special gloves which allow him to fall any distance and land like a cat (ie fly downwards). Oh, and he wields Courflamme, the Mighty Sword of Neutrality, which has the ability to kill thousands of demons with a thought.

Here are some excerpts of one of his battles in the Abyss that will have you rolling on the floor.

"Gord raised the diamond-bright part of Courflamme, aiming at the demon's outthrust head. The sword's tip suddenly spat forth a black bolt of force. The crackling ebon dart sheared off the top of the fiend's head, and the impact of it actually flipped the demon's massive body over in a somersault.

Without pausing to view his work, Gord turned and faced his next foe, now aiming the long blade as if it were a wand. Again the inky core of the weapon sent forth a blast of dark power, and another of the charging demons died. It became almost mechanical thereafter: Gord pointed the blade, willed destruction, and again another monstrous beast crashed down dead. Again, again, yet again. Soon a half-circle of twitching demon corpses formed a barrier in front of him, a wall so great that the young champion could see nothing but its stinking height."

And if that's not enough for you, Gellor, his sidekick, has certainly grown from being that raspcallion guardian of Gord's from the first couple of books. Here's an example of what he's like in combat with demons:

"Gellor brought forth his ivory kanteel, adjusted one of the golden pegs, and gently stroked the silver strings of the little harp. A ripple of beautiful notes washed outward, and the demon-beasts reacted as if they had been struck by a tidal wave.

When the sounds from the enchanted strings of the instrument struck, fully a dozen of the massive monsters were bowled over, while a half-hundred of the lesser scavengers were blown away, some actually torn to pieces in the process."

And here's a final excerpt to blow you away (literally):

"Side by side, the two heroes strode across the endless leagues of the foul layer that was the entry to the Abyss. In a short time, thanks to their innate force, they came to the towering bluffs that housed the gateways to the next twenty tiers of the agglomeration of planes that formed the depth of evil called demonrealm, the Abyss. A few hundred lesser demons were there to contest their entry, prevent them from going on, but those malign guards died in vain, swiftly and without great effort from the pair. A clear and bright melody from the kanteel, some dark and deadly lightnings from the rejoined sword, Courflamme, and none stood to oppose them."

The lobotomy is complementary, of course.

Oh, and a special note to Gary's lawyers should they decide to chase me - this is just an opinion!

 

[Priestvyrce]

This is easy...Dance of Demons without a shadow of a doubt. And they say bad things about Ed Greenwood...wait till you see this one.

Let me tell you - Gary Gygax definitely created the uber-munchkin concept with the culmination of his central character, Gord the Rogue, first introduced in Saga of Old City and Artifact of Ultimate Evil (I'll skip the descriptives for Gord and his cohorts as I'm assuming that if you've managed to get this far you know who they all are). Elminster seriously looks like a shrimp compared to this guy. At this stage of the saga (I think there are seven books ahead of it) Gord's still human (using that term very loosely), but he's got about a zillion innate powers and godlike abilities.

In one sequence he kills about two THOUSAND demons (I kid you NOT) by himself, while his partner (also human) kills another two thousand. All this happens in one encounter.

In another one he faces off with the Reaper, Nerull, Lord of Hades, also known as Infestix, also known as the supreme leader of the yugoloths (daemons) and kicks his ass.

Did I say that Gord, at this stage, is not even thirty years old?

Dance of Demons has to be the WORST book I've ever read - Gary, who is rightly regarded as the father of D&D, must've gone completely dry on ideas and penned this for the money. His former narrative brilliance, so much in evidence in Saga of Old City and Artifact of Ultimate Evil, raised hopes that he was one of the few D&D writers who could stand among the contemporary fantasy crowd (or to a young - at the time - muppet like myself, he seemed like one, anyway). But this book is a shocker. No suspense, no twists, nothing but Super-Gord cutting a swathe through every single thing. It's D&D munchkinism at its absolute worst.

Gord is now the Champion of Balance (Good and Evil are BOTH undesirable) and is IMPERVIOUS to defeat and demon lords like Graz'zt, Demogorgon, Mandrillagon and Orcus, as well as daemonkings like Anthraxus and Infestix, and the Dukes Infernal (Asmodeus and Co.) quail before his relentless onslaught. And YES, as I said before, he's still human.

And just what exactly can Super-Gord do? (Don't worry, these aren't spoilers as they are revealed in the first five pages of the book.) Well, he can communicate by telepathy. He can move to any place with a thought. He can drop off other wizards' radar and do the stealth bomber thing. His armor is lighter than air. He has a magic ring which when worn makes it impossible for anyone to hurt him either physically or magically. Since he supposed to be a thief, he has these special gloves which allow him to fall any distance and land like a cat (ie fly downwards). Oh, and he wields Courflamme, the Mighty Sword of Neutrality, which has the ability to kill thousands of demons with a thought.

Here are some excerpts of one of his battles in the Abyss that will have you rolling on the floor.

"Gord raised the diamond-bright part of Courflamme, aiming at the demon's outthrust head. The sword's tip suddenly spat forth a black bolt of force. The crackling ebon dart sheared off the top of the fiend's head, and the impact of it actually flipped the demon's massive body over in a somersault.

Without pausing to view his work, Gord turned and faced his next foe, now aiming the long blade as if it were a wand. Again the inky core of the weapon sent forth a blast of dark power, and another of the charging demons died. It became almost mechanical thereafter: Gord pointed the blade, willed destruction, and again another monstrous beast crashed down dead. Again, again, yet again. Soon a half-circle of twitching demon corpses formed a barrier in front of him, a wall so great that the young champion could see nothing but its stinking height."

And if that's not enough for you, Gellor, his sidekick, has certainly grown from being that raspcallion guardian of Gord's from the first couple of books. Here's an example of what he's like in combat with demons:

"Gellor brought forth his ivory kanteel, adjusted one of the golden pegs, and gently stroked the silver strings of the little harp. A ripple of beautiful notes washed outward, and the demon-beasts reacted as if they had been struck by a tidal wave.

When the sounds from the enchanted strings of the instrument struck, fully a dozen of the massive monsters were bowled over, while a half-hundred of the lesser scavengers were blown away, some actually torn to pieces in the process."

And here's a final excerpt to blow you away (literally):

"Side by side, the two heroes strode across the endless leagues of the foul layer that was the entry to the Abyss. In a short time, thanks to their innate force, they came to the towering bluffs that housed the gateways to the next twenty tiers of the agglomeration of planes that formed the depth of evil called demonrealm, the Abyss. A few hundred lesser demons were there to contest their entry, prevent them from going on, but those malign guards died in vain, swiftly and without great effort from the pair. A clear and bright melody from the kanteel, some dark and deadly lightnings from the rejoined sword, Courflamme, and none stood to oppose them."

The lobotomy is complementary, of course.

Oh, and a special note to Gary's lawyers should they decide to chase me - this is just an opinion!

If I was running a campaign, this character would have been sooooooooo retired! I think that Memnoch has the "winner"! Truely beyond fanboy material!

 

[Archmage]

SPOILER!!!

I think Burrich died more to allow Robin Hobb a way to have Fitz go back with Molly without confrontation, a move done to side-step the dynamic between Fitz and the Fool that had gone on for all 9 books. She really did not deal with the love between them at all. One moment the whole series revolved around it, the next it was like "we are different, goodbye forever". and the book ended. Not a very good resolution in my mind to a fantastic series and great ongoing conflict.

Best,
Joe

[size=+2]SPOILER WARNING[/size]

I think as for Fitz and the Fool, she did four things to bring conclusion to that character dynamic. First, she resolved Fitz's inner dynamic in regards to his friendship with the Fool. Fitz brought the Fool back from death. Fitz realized, at the end, that he excepted the Fool for who he was and the fact that the Fool was in love with him no longer bothered him. He no longer let that get in the way of his friendship with the Fool. Secondly, she expressed seperation, and a need for such a thing. Fitz was the catalyst still, but the Fool was out of his time. The catalyst, actually changed the White Prophets prophecy at the end, by bringing the Fool back to life. Therefore the Fool was no longer the White Prophet. He could no longer look into possible futures. So he did not want to be around Fitz for fear that because Fitz was still the Catalyst, in fact even a stronger Catalyst than he was before, and the Fool did not want to do or say anything that could facilitate the Catalyst making some sort of change that would undo what they had collectively worked to achieve. He lost his ability of 'sight', and therefore knew he could no longer guide Fitz on any course. Third...The Fool was in love with Fitz. But he was aware that Fitz would never love him in the same way. He wanted Fitz to go find happiness in his life with Molly and the rest of his family. But the Fool knew that to have to live in that world, every day, seeing Fitz happily in love with someone else, would be to much for him to bear. Furthermore, because the Fool was no longer a White Prophet, he was born anew in a sense. He needed to discover himself, and find purpose for himself. Lastly, the way it ended, with neither of them being able to say goodbye, left a small opening for her in the future to re-visit those characters and that world.

I truthfully do not see how Hobb could have ended it in any better way given the character dynamics between the Fool, Fitz, and Burrich. Everything was brought to a cohesive conclusion that stayed true to the personalities and traits of each character.

Ultimately this is only my opinion of course. You may see all the above aspects as a flawed ending. But we do agree in one thing, The Farseer and Tawny Man Saga is a wonderful piece of fantasy literature.

Peace,
Arch

 

[Rob B]

as for douglas, you can't blame her for the hades daughter plot, its just a stolen revamped version of troy, I liked her book under the hanging wall, the wayfarer redemption was allright but it fell off badly after the first book, and I'm still not sure what ordinary avar look like...

Of course I can blame her...she peddled that dreck-filled,horrid collection of words on paper off as a good novel and wasted almost a week's worth/8 hours of reading time when I could have done about 100 more interesting things.

Arch & Ingen stick to the topic. If you want to discuss Robin Hobb's work in specific, visit our Robin Hobb forum

 

[Ingen_Jegger]

[size=+2]SPOILER WARNING[/size]

I think as for Fitz and the Fool, she did four things to bring conclusion to that character dynamic. First, she resolved Fitz's inner dynamic in regards to his friendship with the Fool. Fitz brought the Fool back from death. Fitz realized, at the end, that he excepted the Fool for who he was and the fact that the Fool was in love with him no longer bothered him. He no longer let that get in the way of his friendship with the Fool. Secondly, she expressed seperation, and a need for such a thing. Fitz was the catalyst still, but the Fool was out of his time. The catalyst, actually changed the White Prophets prophecy at the end, by bringing the Fool back to life. Therefore the Fool was no longer the White Prophet. He could no longer look into possible futures. So he did not want to be around Fitz for fear that because Fitz was still the Catalyst, in fact even a stronger Catalyst than he was before, and the Fool did not want to do or say anything that could facilitate the Catalyst making some sort of change that would undo what they had collectively worked to achieve. He lost his ability of 'sight', and therefore knew he could no longer guide Fitz on any course. Third...The Fool was in love with Fitz. But he was aware that Fitz would never love him in the same way. He wanted Fitz to go find happiness in his life with Molly and the rest of his family. But the Fool knew that to have to live in that world, every day, seeing Fitz happily in love with someone else, would be to much for him to bear. Furthermore, because the Fool was no longer a White Prophet, he was born anew in a sense. He needed to discover himself, and find purpose for himself. Lastly, the way it ended, with neither of them being able to say goodbye, left a small opening for her in the future to re-visit those characters and that world.

I truthfully do not see how Hobb could have ended it in any better way given the character dynamics between the Fool, Fitz, and Burrich. Everything was brought to a cohesive conclusion that stayed true to the personalities and traits of each character.

Ultimately this is only my opinion of course. You may see all the above aspects as a flawed ending. But we do agree in one thing, The Farseer and Tawny Man Saga is a wonderful piece of fantasy literature.

Peace,
Arch

SPOILER

I do agree, it was one of the top five series that I have ever read (and that is saying a lot based upon the sheer amount I have read). I disagree about the resolution, but hey, you can't please all the people all the time right? Maybe if it wasn't "resolved" so fast - I mean, there was thousands of pages leading up to it and it was all essentially done in a chapter.

Best,
Joe

 

[Leiali]

I think Fitz has the right of it here - discussing Fools fate should be done on the thread dedicated to it in the Authors section (I had my say so there so I won't plunge in now!). Plus it doesn't sound like the worst book you've ever read. My vote goes with:

The Redemption of Althalus - David And Leigh Eddings
The Fifth Sorcerer - Robert Newcombe


I just can't describe how awful they are...

 

[Rob B]

Ingen_Jegger:

Did you NOT read my post just above yours!?? You and Arch were getting into a discussion specifically about Robin Hobb and as I said, there is a Robin Hobb forum.

Rob/Fitz

 

[Priestvyrce]

:

The Redemption of Althalus - David And Leigh Eddings



I just can't describe how awful they are...

When the book first came out, I saw it in hardcover and read the sleeve blurb. And after reading it, I put the book back on the shelf ,slowly backed away and ran in the other direction!

 

[Warewolf]

Gotta be either Six of Swords by Carole Nelson Douglas or Heroine of the World by Tanith Lee. The former was just appallingly written to the point where I didn't even know what was going on at times. The latter had no plot whatsoever. The protagonist just went along with whatever was going on around her and let herself be taken wherever others willed. She had no willpower and no thoughts of escaping or fighting her enemies. The book ended and I said, "Huh? What was the point?" No climax and no resolution. Ugh.

 

[Ingen_Jegger]

Ingen_Jegger:

Did you NOT read my post just above yours!?? You and Arch were getting into a discussion specifically about Robin Hobb and as I said, there is a Robin Hobb forum.

Rob/Fitz

There is indeed, but seeing as how this was directly related to this topic, I feel as if it is more relavent for this spot. If I had simply randomly brought Hobb up then your position would be understandable. I saw nothing in the guidelines for this post that specified "No Robin Hobb books may be picked since there is a seperate forum for discussing them". And since I had a real bone to pick with the last book of the Tawny Man series, I think you should rethink both your agressions and stance.

Moreover, you will noticed that I am reciently joined to this forum. I believe I have a lot to contribute; is it general practice to greet newbies as you have done?

Regards,
Joe

 

[Ingen_Jegger]

I think Fitz has the right of it here - discussing Fools fate should be done on the thread dedicated to it in the Authors section (I had my say so there so I won't plunge in now!). Plus it doesn't sound like the worst book you've ever read.

Leiali, thanks for responding, you will notice that in my original post I stated that it is too easy to simply pick out a bad, or talentless author and say it is the worst fantasy book ever. Rather than do that (because there are so many in that category) I chose authors who I enjoy, and believe are truly talented, but felt they dropped the ball with certain books and therefore deserved the title of "worst fantasy book". It is a valid point that I made based upon my opinion and I hope you recognize that. I am sorry if you wanted the discussion not to take place here, but it was directly related to the topic and only indirectly related to the author.

Thanks,
Joe

 

[JohnH]

Joe,

When you say this.

in my original post I stated that it is too easy to simply pick out a bad, or talentless author and say it is the worst fantasy book ever. Rather than do that (because there are so many in that category) I chose authors who I enjoy, and believe are truly talented, but felt they dropped the ball with certain books and therefore deserved the title of "worst fantasy book". It is a valid point that I made based upon my opinion and I hope you recognize that. I am sorry if you wanted the discussion not to take place here, but it was directly related to the topic and only indirectly related to the author.

In a thread that is entitled: What's the worst fantasy novel ever IYO?

The answer to your question: is it general practice to greet newbies as you have done? is 'well, yes'. If you don't like the topic or feel it does not subscribe to what you think, start a new topic. Stating that you don't buy into trashing a particular author or work as the "worst", is quite valid. Then trying to turn the topic into what you do think or feel? Not so much. Feel free to state that you don't have such a work to post. But why complain when called on not applying to the topic when you outright admit you aren't?

So yes, you are offtopic talking about Hobb if you do not believe she produced the worst book you ever read. Either go to the proper Hobb thread or start one that allows the discussion you want as well as encourages a more general tone that would allow for a broader range than just Hobb. Go wild. You'll either end up being ignored or end up with a thread where everyone can show off what they got for mommy and daddy's money in higher educational expenditures

 

[Ingen_Jegger]

Joe,

When you say this.



In a thread that is entitled: What's the worst fantasy novel ever IYO?

The answer to your question: is it general practice to greet newbies as you have done? is 'well, yes'. If you don't like the topic or feel it does not subscribe to what you think, start a new topic. Stating that you don't buy into trashing a particular author or work as the "worst", is quite valid. Then trying to turn the topic into what you do think or feel? Not so much. Feel free to state that you don't have such a work to post. But why complain when called on not applying to the topic when you outright admit you aren't?

So yes, you are offtopic talking about Hobb if you do not believe she produced the worst book you ever read. Either go to the proper Hobb thread or start one that allows the discussion you want as well as encourages a more general tone that would allow for a broader range than just Hobb. Go wild. You'll either end up being ignored or end up with a thread where everyone can show off what they got for mommy and daddy's money in higher educational expenditures

John, you may have a point, maybe I should not have taken it upon myself to alter the question for my response. I am sure it is important to stay on topic simply because of the amount of people who post here. Mea culpa. I am a newbie and discovering this. I had not, in fact, seen Fitz' post above mine. He was probably writing it at the same time as I was compiling my own. Also, I had no idea that there was a special Hobb forum. I was still under the impression that I was following close enough to the topic. For that, I apologize. However, do you think the tone of your post and the personal attack at the end was warrented? I hope not. I post in a few wine collecting forums and that is about it, but the welcome was decidedly different there. Like I said, I think that I have something to offer this board and maybe I will stick around and see if I get a more positive reaction from others. Now, I hope you guys can get back on topic from this little back-and-forth.

Regards,
Joe

 

[Nimea]

Hey, Joe, positive welcome here.

And don't get too annoyed here, it's just JohnH. But kidding aside I don't believe that it was a personal attack rather a bitter comment about other threads here and born out of tenseness due to some things happening over the last few weeks.

And since I have nothing to contribute on topic right now (I have quarrels with a lot of books, but not really one that leads to me saying pure crap), I just comment on how 'funny' it is what threads are newly started again and again over the month. Didn't we have some other worst books threads? *shrugs*

But, never mind me.

 

[Rob B]

I had not, in fact, seen Fitz' post above mine. He was probably writing it at the same time as I was compiling my own.

Regards,
Joe

Actually, they were about 7 hours apart, but that's neither here nor there.

Didn't intend to scare you off Joe, but it was veering off the topic a bit too much and others have mentioned this to me as an admin, it is a problem we see in the forums often too -- topics straying too much from the intended purpose.

Anyway, welcome to the forums, I don't doubt you have a good deal to contribute!

Best,

Rob

Back to topic -

Another horrid novel I couldn't finish, was oh about 5 years ago now, was Michael Marano's DAWN SONG. A plodding novel about thinly fleshed out characters that somehow won the Bram Stoker Award for Best First Horror novel.

ech.

 

[AuntiePam]

Another horrid novel I couldn't finish, was oh about 5 years ago now, was Michael Marano's DAWN SONG. A plodding novel about thinly fleshed out characters that somehow won the Bram Stoker Award for Best First Horror novel.

ech.

Ditto on the Marano.

SF readers complain about the Hugos being undeserved; horror readers have the Stokers. It's enough to give awards a bad name.

Stay away from Ordinary Horror by David Searcy unless you like reading about someone putting lemons in his garbage disposal.