The Sword and Laser discussion

This is my reflections on why I think SoS is a great pick, despite it’s obvious plagiarism off Tolkien.

This discussion “SoS is dump!!!” connects to a wider discussion on Junk fiction. I have read a lot of junk – Warhammer books, Dragonlance, Star Wars and so on and so on. None of these books can be said to be good in themselves. They are typically semi-unimaginative and badly written (sorry – they really are)

In me I have a critical voice – “Why do you read this junk. People who read junk literature are the simple souls their critics make them out to be! Read more art/serious/avant-garde literature!”

On the other hand I have a voice – “can I be a serious reader who deeply enjoys junk fiction as well?”

For me the appeal of junk fiction (like SoS) stems partly from its capacity to relax and immerse myself in a world/genre that I know. If you want to be academical you can call this "thick reading."

Classic great fiction – like the Lord of the Rings - invites and rewards study--it's a literature of the monumental individual work. Junk fiction, by contrast, is without important single texts, but it is dynamic when viewed as a system of genres.

When I read a Star Wars book, it is not about the individual novel. It is about the world, how I fits into cannon, does it present a new side off Vader etc.

When I read SoS, it is not about whether or not it’s obvious plagiarism off Tolkien (all fantasy is plagiarism off Tolkien). It is about what Terry Brooks does with the plagiarism. What do his choices tell me about the genre of fantasy and Tolkien?

In this way SoS is a supreme example of how to read Junk/genre fiction. This book is so close to the original source, that you can identify every single deviation from the original and reflect on why Brooks changes Tolkien/the fantasy genre.

So when I read SoS, I have a internal dialog like this

- ISN’T NICE TO SEE BILBO AN FRODO ON A NEW ADVENTURE?
- Does SoS show a new side of Gandalf?
- Who might be Boromir?
- By the way – isn’t Sean Bean totally awesome
- I miss Sean Bean in Game of thrones
- Terry Brooks seems to be fond of creepy monsters, does this connect with the development in horror fiction?
- I really need to read more Stephen King
- Etc.

I like this kind of reading. What kind of internal dialog do you have while reading SoS?

I think most of my internal monologue consisted of, "This is too much like Lord of the Rings" and "I wonder where I put my Legos" and "I'm hungry again."

As I posted in another thread, sometimes you just need to turn off your brain and be entertained. Nothing wrong with that, and if Shannara fills that role, good on it.

I would take exception to the blanket statement of "all Fantasy plagiarizes Tolkien" though. There are clear threads even within Epic Fantasy which have no relation to Tolkien's work. It is true that he's the elephant in the room when it comes to this subgenere, but there are plenty of other authors who are beholden to different traditions, most of them older than LotR.

Trike wrote: "I would take exception to the blanket statement of "all Fantasy plagiarizes Tolkien" though. There are clear threads even within Epic Fantasy which have no relation to Tolkien's work"

I agree with this. While most epic fantasy certainly has one or two things derived from Tolkien's work, saying it's all plagiarized is going well overboard and missing the mark. There's a lot of imagination that goes into epic fantasy, and much of it has nothing to do with Tolkien's creations or style.

I love this topic! Looks like I have to admit that I love "junk fiction" in the same way I like a burger and fries on occasion instead of some six-course tasting meal at some 3 Michelin Star restaurant in Midtown. Don't get me wrong, I love me an exquisite feast, but that's not all I eat and it's not all I enjoy.

At the end of the day, I go for what makes me "feel" good--or any way for that matter--and if that means rereading Dragonlance because I'm feeling nostalgic...deal me in!

Great topic.

I make no apologies for enjoying "junk" fiction. Some of my best insights to religion come from comics - Sandman and early Warlock especially. I picked up an emotional feel for what it was like to be Germany between the US and Russia from the Perry Rhodan series (if anyone remembers that, it was the fight between the Laurins and the Posbis.) An understanding of relativistic travel from Niven. A feel for medieval societies from McCaffrey. There's nothing particularly junky about "junk" fiction.

For me, it comes down to why you're reading. Yes, I read a lot of fantasy, and I'll admit much of it isn't exactly intellectually stimulating. But I'm not reading these books to learn or have Deep Thoughts(TM), I'm reading to be entertained - nothing more, nothing less. I'm not saying these books can't teach me something, or make me think, but that's a side benefit.

this, this, and all of this. I've lemed better books than SoS, but I read SoS faster than most books I read. it's fun. plain and simple. it was an easy read. it's easy to bash on brooks, and I would agree that epic fantasy or high fantasy or whatever term we have for the genre that sees elves like Legolas and no Santa's little helpers, steals heavily from Tolkien. it's ok that he gave us a genre. I like that genre. I like familiarity. that's not to say I don't like original fantasy or different takes on it. I like the grittiness of ASOIAF, and the charm and cussing in lies of locke lamora. I like the poetry of The Name of the Wind.
I also like the simple joys of farm boy is special. joins party to kill big bad guy with magic thing. it's a good time.

Tastykimchi wrote: "I also like the simple joys of farm boy is special. joins party to kill big bad guy with magic thing. "

I think I might like a small-scope novella where a farm kid goes to college for agriculture, learns and actively researches the best methods, and returns to the farm to modernize it and try some new experiments in sustainability. Manages to blend tradition and innovation. A quiet spec-fic set some 5 years in the future or so. Or something similar set in a medium-to-low fantasy world.

But that's off-topic. Don't mind me.

I've spent a huge chunk of my reading life focused on 'literary fiction' and when I started reading genre fiction in force for the first time since I was a kid a few years ago I went from reading maybe 20 books each year to 80+. I've found that I'm now being introduced to significantly more challenging ideas even if they are a bit less dense from book to book.

Big ideas are ever-present in speculative fiction and it's a shame that terms like 'literary fiction' are even a thing.

Hmm.... I think there's a difference between lighter fiction meant mostly to entertain and junk fiction. The latter, to me, implies that it's not well written and/or extremely derivative. For example, yes, most epic fantasy has themes and facets reminiscent of Tolkien whose own fiction harks back to mythology. There's nothing wrong with writing yet another hero's journey story.

However, there is something wrong with doing a paint by numbers imitation of a story where you lightly alter the names and a few other things, then pass it off as your own (fanfic excepted since that's not pro writing). There's also something wrong when the writing itself isn't of very good quality.

Light entertainment fiction doesn't have to be junk and the division isn't between junk and serious, weighty writing. All of us should be able to enjoy light, entertaining writing. No one should settle for actual junk.

Are we making a distinction though between junk fiction and pulp fiction (I mean the original use of the term not the Tarantino film ;)).

Pulp fiction being throw away/disposable story telling. Recycled plots, stereo-type characters, simple language.

Junk fiction would be something that was completely worthless, i.e. unreadable.

I remember reading Never Let Me Go a few years back and being bored half way through because I'd seen the plot twist done better in far less worthy sci-fi books.

Even as someone who bowed out of reading Shanara this month, this topic makes me so happy. HURRAH JUNK! HURRAH ENJOYING THINGS! HURRAH RECOGNIZING THAT SOMETHING MIGHT NOT BE GREAT BUT MIGHT BE ENJOYABLE ANYWAY, THAT WE READERS HAVE COMPLEX RELATIONSHIPS WITH BOOKS, THAT LITERATURE IS A DEEP POND CAPABLE OF HOLDING BOTH THE FISH AND THE LEVIATHAN.

*ahem*

I'm kind of with Rick here-- but not entirely. I think there's definitely a category of literature that is just light and entertaining but excellently written to be light entertainment-- I would just say that that's Good Junk Fiction though. Even Excellent Junk Fiction, or Absolutely Bloody Genius Junk Fiction. A lot of Wodehouse stories (which I go to when I want to turn my brain off), I feel like go in that last bit.

It's like, I think most people would be comfortable calling Deadpool a junk movie. Or Dredd a junk movie. Or Kill Bill. But they're brilliantly achieved junk movies.

Rob - I could deal with the definition you have. I was trying to differentiate between something where the story is not only derivative and kind of obvious *and* the writing isn't good vs something that's lightweight but well-done and to me junk is a pejorative word. For example, much of Scalzi's OMW work is fairly lightweight. Hell, much of HEINLEIN is, in the sense that it's meant to tell an interesting, entertaining story and do that well.

I've not read SoS (I'm a streak reader (NOT a streaking reader!!) and am at one of those low points where I don't really have much enthusiasm for reading) but it seems to have some people in a tizzy about the writing itself. To me, that would put it in the junk vs light entertainment category but, as I said, I've not read it.

Everyone draws the line for Junk Fiction differently. "One man's trash" and all that.

I rated the first couple Shannara books 3 stars because when I read them back in the late 70s and early 80s I was a teenager. They were fine and I liked them. If I were coming to them fresh today I would probably give them 1 star, but that's after 40 years of consuming stories, so my definitions of good and bad have changed.

But it's not like I'm a snob. I still love adventure stories and I'm still reading comic books. If it's not completely derivative, I'm cool. After all, everything is a remix. At this point I just want the mix to be better disguised is all. For someone else, that mix is totally different and this probably passes muster without any problem.