SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

I hope it does pay off and when/if it does I will rate it accordingly. It's just I can't name a single epic fantasy series that I felt actually paid off. The interludes and backstories I don't have a problem with at all actually(outside of the first book, where I felt they broke up the story in a jarring fashion too often like they needed to be placed in a different location, second book they felt fine though). Just the slow moving is trying to be character development but the characters still don't feel entirely real to me, but Sanderson is getting better based off Elantris-->Mistborn-->Stormlight. The format of Mistborn I felt just disgiused his current weaknesses the most.

Let's see. I agree with several already mentioned, but then there's also Xanth.

Oddly enough it got better from the first few as he got a better grip on the world and then lasted a bit before it started to sink again.

Oh, and the Kris Longknife series. From Okay to nasty at light speed.

I guess I have different criteria for "dropoff" than many of you. I don't look at a series and say, "well, the plot isn't going the way I'd like, therefore I'm no longer interested". Instead, I look more at things like "Is the writing style still interesting", or "is the author just phoning it in?" or "do I still care what happens to these characters?"
For this reason, I would not include WoT, or Foundation, or Dune, or Dark Tower, all of which continued to entertain me to the end, even though some of them (like Dune) went off in completely wild directions. I WOULD include Eragon (let's face it, if Paolini had been 40, everyone would have agreed it was terrible), and I would add Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 series. The last one (3001?) was completely awful.

@rich: I should have written: Almost YA novels I have read, especially those three I mentioned.

Steve wrote: "I guess I have different criteria for "dropoff" than many of you. I don't look at a series and say, "well, the plot isn't going the way I'd like, therefore I'm no longer interested". Instead, I loo..."

I agree. I dropped WoT because it meandered. But the writing didn't deteriorate.. I also thought that Foundation remained excellent. I lost interest in Dune after the first three books.

But Eragon was bad after the first brilliant novel. Book 1 of Space Odyssey was also brilliant, but the subsequent ones weren't as good. I felt the same thing about the Rama books.

Ender's Game is one that is mentioned a lot, but I've always felt it was probably only supposed to be one book, but he might have been asked to write more (since it was successful). It's the same way with G.R.R. Martin's work - I can't help but feel that he's being asked to extend the series beyond its already substantial length because of how successful it has been.

L.G. wrote: "Ender's Game is one that is mentioned a lot, but I've always felt it was probably only supposed to be one book, but he might have been asked to write more (since it was successful). It's the same w..."

It wasn't originally even a novel. I read it as a shorter work in Analog.

Dune is definitely at the top of my list—the first book was so great but man did it go south quickly after that.

I'm curious about the Ender's Game discussion—where did the drop-off occur? I never got to Children of the Mind, but I thought EG, SofD and Xenocide were all really good.

As to the Dark Tower—I agree it was up and down, but I don't really think it dropped-off. Of course, I'm also one of the few who loved the way the series ended so take my opinion with a grain of salt. ;)

Megatherium wrote: "Kevan wrote: "I thought Harry Potter got better from #1 to #3. To me, Prisoner of Azkaban was where the series peaked. Of course, #1 was ground breaking, and therefore unique. #5 to #7 felt like an..."

I am glad someone mentioned Xanth. I stopped reading after Golem in Gears (4th or 5th). If someone told me they started improving again I doubt I would read them. Too many TBR.

For me, it was the Drizzt series. Started out fine, although I wasn't nearly as gaga over it as a lot of others were, but Salvatore started doing things that annoyed me, such as building up to a climactic battle royale, then just skipping out on it, or the monologues he started having Drizzt deliver at the beginning of a section. But the coup de grace was the Transitions trilogy. Here were three stories that had absolutely nothing to do with each other, yet they were a trilogy. I was left shaking my head, completely baffled as to what this was supposed to be. Salvatore developed a talent for copping out. After that trilogy I refused to pick up another book by R.A. Salvatore. I can understand an author writing a long series and producing the occasional work that's not quite up to snuff, but Salvatore just seemed to go steadily downhill.

Guy wrote: "For me, it was the Drizzt series. Started out fine, although I wasn't nearly as gaga over it as a lot of others were, but Salvatore started doing things that annoyed me, such as building up to a cl..."

Ah, that's a good call.

"The Farseer Trilogy" by Robin Hobb. The first book was good, the second book was amazing, and then the third was a big letdown for me. Apparently, this is a trend in all of her books.

This may be unpopular, but George R.R. Martins a song of Ice and Fire. The first book was good, but the quality of every book since, longer than the one before, has gone down. He really needs an editor who will say, enough with the endless descriptions of what people are wearing and eating! When people compare him to Tolkien, it makes me laugh. I never get any sense of real history in Westeros the way I do from Middle Earth.

I gave up Song of Ice and Fire when one book did not advance the plot.

But you're right about how it went downhill.

dune, 1st book superior classic. the rest merely mortal.

A Song of Ice and Fire is my go-to example, but hardly the only one. First book okay, second book awesome, third book weak, fourth book was a total "WTF are we doing walking around in circles?!" situation. Done.

Another one that started strong but just petered out is the Safehold series by David Weber, I quite enjoyed the first couple books, but then he started doing that running-in-quicksand thing so I bailed after the fourth one.

I'm also getting that feeling from the Destroyermen series. The plot still kind of moves forward, but it doesn't feel like all that much is happening, so I no longer buy them.

Joe McKinney's Dead World series of zombie books went off a cliff. The first three are superb, but the fourth one feels like it was written by an intern. It's so bad that I honestly do feel like it was written by one of those bookmill places.

Zayne wrote: "Guy wrote: "For me, it was the Drizzt series. Started out fine, although I wasn't nearly as gaga over it as a lot of others were, but Salvatore started doing things that annoyed me, such as buildin..."

I didn't know all of that. Leave it a publisher to butcher a good story.

I have never understood the love for R.A Salvatore. He is cliche to the point of it being pathetic. Drizzt is a whiny, Marty Stu and the dialogue....dear GOD the dialogue!

*minor spoilers for the Canticle series ahead*

Also, his Canticle series were the first books of his I read. He seriously did a "Luke, I am your father" reveal with the big bad? Really? You had to resort to that old horse to beat? Also, what the hell is up with that dwarf who wants to be a Druid? Mispronouncing words like Doodad = Druid and inserting random hee hee's into his...let's call it conversations? Is this supposed to be humor?

Zayne wrote: "And really? So what if he did the whole Vader-Luke thing? Just because StarWars did it doesn't make it inaccessible for anyone else. "

It kind of does. Star Wars is so popular that stealing directly from it is very noticeable because of the huge number of people who have seen it and have it memorized. One should also never write a book in which you have to return a magical ring to a volcano.

Zayne wrote: "I never thought Drizzt was whiney. I always thought he was just a lost soul looking for a place to call home with friends around. I see nothing whiney about that.

No, there's nothing whiny about wanting to fit in and find your niche in the world, I agree with you on that. What makes it whiny is when he sits around and bemoans his fate doing the whole "Oh the pain! I'm such a tortured soul!" routine that I start to smirk. Salvatore just comes off as very juvenile to me is all. No disrespect to any of his fans, but his style of writing is clearly not meant for me.

Zayne wrote: "I know, right? But Drizzt is recovering. It got a little dark after Transitions, but its getting back on track in case you haven't read the latest ones. Maybe your opinion about Salvatore has chang..."
I don't know. Maybe I'll give it another shot. I'm still ticked off about what happened to Cattie Brie and Regis, too.

I never thought Drizzt was whiney, but I really disliked those monologues at the beginning of a section. A character shouldn't have to deliver a speech directly to the reader. Readers should get to know the character through his actions and dialogue/interactions with other characters.

For me Words of Radiance was a massive disappointment and has relegated the series to B grade at best.

What shocked me are the huge number of 5 star ratings that the book received, making the rating system close to useless.

The massive coincidences that the plot relied on, the out of character behaviour, the knowledge that whatever is going wrong, somehow our super heroes will win the day. If this is what passes for 5 star fantasy then we are in a lot of trouble.

The problem with subplots over a series is in their very nature as being plotlines subordinate to the main plot. You can have some of the most interesting subplots in the world, but if the thing that drew the readers in in the first place (the main plot) doesn't move forward, then interest will wane. It might take a little longer if the subplots are really strong, but it'll happen.

Subplots?
If it's a background thing that has let's say a story with one of the major/minor characters and their adventure that adds to their character and often ties in with the world as a whole. I would collect these and put these in a side book you see alot of these X.5 books where it's a collection of side stories or maybe just one side story. I don't think there is a hard and fast rule on this if your not sure talk to friends/your editor.

If you mean subplots like X likes Y or maybe someone dealing with their past. Drama like that is awesome as long as it's in order to reveal more about the characters and have them develop and grow as characters. Which should tie into the way they react to the problems the main plot presents.

Other things:
Have consisent magic/science. If because of the magic/science system cannot do X magic/science thing, when your lead character inevitabily does X make sure they suffer consequences that are in line with the world.

There's a balance you have to keep. I once had a student ms which was nearly 2000 pages long. A character who seemed to be the protagonist adventured through the first two chapters. I fell off the sled at that point, but someone else in the class read all 2000 pages. She reported that this character vanished in chapter 3 and did not reappear until about page 1900. There was such a thicket of subplot that the main story, if there was one, was lost.

Was this character's name Brand kal'Dor?

Some writers have managed to write books that weave together interlacing subplots instead having a main plot.

It's an art. And you do need something strong to hold them all together.

But subplots can be useful, if they echo the main plot thematically (with variations), or complicate it. Ideally, both.

Robert wrote: "This may be unpopular, but George R.R. Martins a song of Ice and Fire. The first book was good, but the quality of every book since, longer than the one before, has gone down. He really needs an ed..."

I think the first book was the best. The next two were good, but the ones after are, in my opinion, noticeably worse than the others. The last one did not leave me nearly as impressed as the first.

Tannera wrote: "This is an educational topic for me. I read comments referring to lack of character development, plot holes, lower quality of writing, etc. Anything else specific? How about subplots? Do they becom..."

Subplots become boring when they're obviously subplots. When it's like the "sidequests" in a video game that the player knows have no bearing on the story's outcome, but they need to get through to complete enough achievements for the 'good ending'. That stuff is just 'work' for the reader, or player.

What makes a good subplot, I feel, is when it is integral to the story. It may not involve the protagonist directly, but it affects them and the subplot itself is crafted in such a way as to be an interesting part of the world of the book, and not just a supporting, self-contained side story.

Tetra wrote: "For me Words of Radiance was a massive disappointment and has relegated the series to B grade at best.

...the knowledge that whatever is going wrong, somehow our super heroes will win the day."

I completely disagree, but SA is also my favorite current series, so I am a little biased.

Sanderson is less gritty and more hopeful though, so the "good guys will prevail" thing isn't a negative factor for some of us. I want my good guys to win. Some risk is ok, but I tire with all the GRRM imitators that feel killing off a character will magically make them as popular as he is. There are only about a dozen main characters and 10 books to get through. I don't want them all dropping dead before we even reach book 3.

Over in another GR board we are discussing HER MAJESTY'S DRAGON by Naomi Novik. Alas, but this series (there are going to be 12 vols. in all) is a good example of quality fall-off. Commentators agree that the first book was thrilling, but along about 9 or 10 just about everybody has fallen off the sled. It is my hope that she will pull it out of the hole with a stellar vol. 12.

Luke wrote:

Tetra wrote: "For me Words of Radiance was a massive disappointment and has relegated the series to B grade at best.

...the knowledge that whatever is going wrong, somehow our super heroes will win the day."

I completely disagree, but SA is also my favorite current series, so I am a little biased.

Sanderson is less gritty and more hopeful though, so the "good guys will prevail" thing isn't a negative factor for some of us. I want my good guys to win. Some risk is ok, but I tire with all the GRRM imitators that feel killing off a character will magically make them as popular as he is. There are only about a dozen main characters and 10 books to get through. I don't want them all dropping dead before we even reach book 3.

I'm not a big fan of SA, I gave both books 3/5, but I felt like the second was actually an improvement over the first. As for good wins in the end...uhhhhhhh yes that's like 99% of fantasy. If you literally mean good always wins the Battle that is not always true in Sandersons works and tradition holds that the later books of any series are darker.

GRRM's crazy character killing feels over the top for me. I just can't connect to any of the characters and then he kills them off after they have served their part. That and the primary plot of the series is the subplots, like if you ask someone what is The Game of Thrones about they will tell you all about the drama and subplots going on but not a sigular story. Now let's compare David Weber's Safehold series which has thousands of characters and people dying all the time, the plot of the series is pretty straight forward and everything ties very cleanly into that main plot and if you ask someone what the series is about they will tell you the primary plot.

I'm actually trying to think of a story where the good guys lost in the end...that isn't a dystopian.

Aaron wrote: "Luke wrote:

Tetra wrote: "For me Words of Radiance was a massive disappointment and has relegated the series to B grade at best.

...the knowledge that whatever is going wrong, somehow our super..."

I think those two (always winning vs. crazy character killing) are extremes, and that we tend to avoid more nuanced options...

How about a protagonist winning a pyrrhic victory? (i.e. one that comes at such cost that it feels more like a defeat)
How about a protagonist winning through his/her death? (i.e. resolving a fundamental imbalance in the world of the novel by dying)
How about losing, but winning something else in the end?
How about a book ending in a stalemate?
How about the result being a 'status quo ante bellum'? (i.e. things as they were before the central conflict)

Though I agree that I still have to find a fantasy series that ends clearly in one of the above

THE WORM OUROBOUROS would meet the last one.

I have to say that the Honor Harrington Series by David Weber started well with On Basilisk Station, with the next few sequel books being quite good, but then the books became annoyingly repetitive, with way too much talking and an infuriating tendency by David Weber to have the good guys die by the millions while the bad guys too often escape or trick their way out.

Joaquin wrote: "I think those two (always winning vs. crazy character killing) are extremes, and that we tend to avoid more nuanced options...

How about a protagonist winning a pyrrhic victory? (i.e. one that comes at such cost that it feels more like a defeat)
How about a protagonist winning through his/her death? (i.e. resolving a fundamental imbalance in the world of the novel by dying)
How about losing, but winning something else in the end?
How about a book ending in a stalemate?
How about the result being a 'status quo ante bellum'? (i.e. things as they were before the central conflict)

Though I agree that I still have to find a fantasy series that ends clearly in one of the above "

Well, there is the little problem with those sorts of endings, for which we have a technical term. It is No Fun At All.

As J.R.R. Tolkien observed, we are like prisoners, and not to blamed if we "think and talk about other topics than jailers and prison-walls."

Joaquin wrote:

How about X?


Yep for most of these...I would post answers but it's often massive spoilers.

WoR lacks any subtlety in engineering its happy outcomes, I feel I've been bludgeoned by a literary sledgehammer. I too am up for a happy ending, just don't make it too obvious or saccharine.

WoR is YA fantasy, (something that was not apparent to me in the first instalment).

The Way of Kings had lots of potential, an interesting world and interesting characters, I found the back stories a little dull but tolerated them because the main plot kept me riveted. Now that the main plot has become one dimensional, my "love affair" with this series has ended

Bittersweet ending have their good side, too. After all, The Lord of the Rings doesn't end without heavy losses, and they feel it.

Kevan wrote: "Either way, predictability of the ending robs a bit of the edge. It'll probably be a bit of a surprise if GRRM lets his characters live :)"

A few characters will have to live to have a dramatic scene at the end where they remember all that they lost or something.

Tetra wrote: "WoR ..."

I can't really disagree with any of that, which is why I'm luke warm on the series as a whole. But I guess I caught that in the first book and the main problem I had with the first book was some of the jarring scene changes, and some of the side stories both of which were handled alot better in SA. I mean the main plot concept that we were introduced to in the first book sounds cool................but the book is epic fantasy which means it will be a while until we actually get more then hints.

Luke wrote: "I completely disagree, but SA is also my favorite current series, so I am a little biased. "

Sorry to nit pick, but I can't stop myself. (Slightly OCD) That's not really a bias. A bias would be, for instance, if Sanderson were your brother.

Kenneth wrote: "I can't think of any, because I either avoided or gave up on most of those already mentioned..."

Same here...well, I did read all of Frank Herbert's Dune series. They got pretty bad but for some reason I didn't actually notice until after I'd read all of them! ...And then I read the 3 Brian Herbert Dune "House of..." series. Ha! I'm convinced he did that in order to restore the integrity of his father's series because compared to Brian Herbert's take on Dune, Frank's later Dune books were friggin' brilliant!

Side question on Songs of Fire & Ice: Who is the freaking protagonist? I got to book 3, realized there wasn't one and gave up.

Regarding ASOIAF, while there is no real central main character (view spoiler)[at least not since Ned Stark (hide spoiler)], it should be pretty clear that the protagonists are (view spoiler)[Jon & Daenerys. I mean, it is after all the Song of Ice & Fire (hide spoiler)].

Paolo wrote: "Regarding ASOIAF, while there is no real central main character...it should be pretty clear that the protagonists are..."

That was my real issue with the books. It wasn't clear to me who the protagonist(s) is(are) by the end of book 3. He doesn't focus on the characters you point to. The bulk of the books follow other characters...who end up not being the real focus.

What was clear was that he wanted you to root for one side. And then he systematically went through that side eliminating those you were supposed to invest emotional energy in. Didn't work for me from the start.

Micah wrote: "What was clear was that he wanted you to root for one side. And then he systematically went through that side eliminating those you were supposed to invest emotional energy in. Didn't work for me from the start. "

I agree with this. I thought the Starks were the protagonists. But then he (view spoiler)[killed Ned, killed off the rest of the family, destroyed the holding, etc (hide spoiler)]. It was too much, too negative and I couldn't stomach it. So I stopped reading it. I did give it multiple chances - I bought more than one copy and gave away more than one copy.

Micah wrote: "Side question on Songs of Fire & Ice: Who is the freaking protagonist? I got to book 3, realized there wasn't one and gave up. ."

It's possible to write a book without a protagonist. However, you do have to give it SOME kind of focus.

Me, I gave it up when I realized that I'd read a book in which NOTHING, virtually, happened.

Micah wrote: "What was clear was that he wanted you to root for one side."

Eh, there was a time when he had a certain moral complexity to it. Not by turning everything to gray (and how's that supposed to be complex?) but by having the sides not line up nicely with the moral valuations.

But then, after a bit:

Micah wrote: "And then he systematically went through that side eliminating those you were supposed to invest emotional energy in."

Oh, yes. He killed Ned because Ned would normally be the hero. Then he asked himself what would be the plot after that -- oh yes, the son avenges him -- so he kills Rob.

The problem is that violating cliches is not, in itself, an aesthetic impulse, and if you can not curb it to aesthetic aims, you will end up with a wretched mess. Respect cliches. Nothing gets to be a cliche without good reason. You can not violate a cliche without providing an equally good reason for your new thing.

Well said. Losing Ned early on I was fine with because it set up the whole coming of age and coming into authority/responsibility early story arch for his kids...and then he destroyed that arch and had to find some other arch, which never really seemed to appear in the first 3 books.

DavidO wrote: "Sorry to nit pick, but I can't stop myself. (Slightly OCD) That's not really a bias. A bia..."

I was going to comment on something else, then I realized that GR dropped all my notifications for this thread. Oh well.

The bias is more based on the experience I got when waiting for, then reading Warbreaker and the two SA books. They worked perfectly for me and so I enjoy them more than the actual content or skill might warrant. That's why I said I'm biased.

Although, I wasn't as large a fan of Steelheart or Alloy of Law. They're both good concepts, but something just didn't work for me like the rest of his work does.