Fantasy Book Club discussion

General question for the group:

At a library book sale I found a box of (mostly) matching hardcovers of Terry Brook's Shannara series. I read the first three (Sword, Elfstones, & Wishsong) and simply was not all that entertained. I felt like either I had read the same book three times, or had been introduced to the same stereotype for the n'th time.

Not one to quit on something before it's done I want to poll the group in order to make the best decision. Does his work 'improve' in the following books or does it follow the same formula the first three had?

Thoughts?

Thanks in advance.
~Chris

Never read the Shannara books but I absolutely LOVED Magic Kingdom For Sale: Sold and the rest of the Landover series.

I won't get into the Shannara series. There are just too many of them. I do like the Landover series and the Knight of the Word trilogy. Both are limited series, not ones that go on and on and on.

Christopher - if you don't care for Brooks after Elfstones & Wishsong, you probably won't get into him by reading more. But if you want to give it another try, the next series is probably his strongest: The Heritage of Shannara. It begins with The Scions of Shannara

Sandi wrote: "I won't get into the Shannara series. There are just too many of them. I do like the Landover series and the Knight of the Word trilogy. Both are limited series, not ones that go on and on and on."

He does have a new Landover book coming out - A Princess of Landover.

I saw that, Martha! I did notice that it's #6 in the Landover series. I apparently missed #4 & #5. I thought the series was done at #3.

I agree with Chris. While I thought the Heritage of Shannara was his best, it is still very similar to his earlier novels.

However, I've heard that his The Word and the Void trilogy is even better, so you might give that a try. It starts with Running with the Demon.

Kim wrote: "I agree with Chris. While I thought the Heritage of Shannara was his best, it is still very similar to his earlier novels.

However, I've heard that his The Word and the Void trilogy is even bett..."

The Word and the Void is the series I meant. DOH! Running with the Demon was excellent.

So the consensus thus far is that he has better works beyond Shannara series to look into. Further while the latter Shannara books seem stronger, they follow the same formula as the first three.

Did I hit it correctly? Anyone else have a thought to the subject?

Thanks again, it's so good to talk fantasy books esp since nobody I know near me reads them.

Regards
~Chris

I've been a little surprised by what I have come to learn about Brooks and what people think of his stuff.

When I was a kid I remember SWORD coming out, and all the hoopla around it. So because of that, plus for how long his Shannara books have gone on, and my never stepping into much in the Fantasy genre, I was always under the impression he was considered one of the best.

Flash forward to present day when I decide to finally read SWORD after all of these years. I also decided t check out reviews of Brooks stuff. To say I am surprised by how little respect these books actually have is a massive understatement! Even here, on this site in the "Best Series" list, the Shannara books don't make a showing until 44, and that is after a post stating how all the worthwhile series have been listed! LOL!

So here I sit, on page 97 of SWORD, wondering if I should finally finish this after the 30 year wait, or if my time would be better spent finding other Fantasy. I mean, my first real step into the genre (aside from LOTR), should I really be starting with something "subpar"? Or should I finish reading it to appease a 9 year old kid living in the back of my head who always wanted to read this book, but understanding that there is "better" out there and to be ready to move into one of those after this to REALLY give the Fantasy genre a shot (this is where I am leaning, BTW)?

Carl - I would at least finish SWORD. It's a damn good story and Brooks is a great storyteller. I think the reason you don't see a lot of hype around him is that he is somewhat standard. By that I mean his work is very typical of the fantasy genre, and not especially ground-breaking. It's not gritty and full of graphic sex and violence, nor does his work feature hot heroines that are self-reliant in their pursuit of sex and eliminating vampires. In other words, when people want something "different" and "exciting", they turn to other things....

Brooks isn't YA, but he isn't purely adult either. He doesn't tell a dreamlike fairy tale, nor does he use a lot of gritty reality. He is somewhere in the middle of all of that.

What Brooks does offer is a modern author with a fantastic vision that does hold true to what Tolkien accomplished. His books are what fantasy is all about, along with early Feist and Jordan. It's a wonderful foundation for any fantasy reader, and well worth the trip.

Myself, I have read the original trilogy, the Heritage series, and the Voyage of the Jerle Shannara. I plan to eventually finish them all....

Carl, you are where I am - though I read the first trilogy. I sat there reading Sword noting all the similarities to LOTR and all the fantasty stereotypes from D&D. I kept saying to myself, 'self, I've read this before... how many grumpy dwarves, haughty elves, and fallen human societies must one read about?'

These are feelings I had because I have been there and read that, you (according to your post) are still new to the fantasy library. At the least finish up Swords. This will reenforce the 'typical' styles of traditional fantasy which you can refer to in reading to come.

As for continuing with the Trilogy, I wouldn't recommend it. Wishsong and Elfstones are basically the same book - grand voyage with underqualified characters to a distant evil foundry. There are just too many other good authors and stories out there which beg to be read over the rest of this trilogy.

Personally, I'm thinking about letting go of the other books following the first trilogy. I can always find them again at the library or used book store shall I find the need.

Cheers
~Chris

Thanks for the replies! I'm pretty sure that I will finish this one up, and then will more than likely be moving on to Game Of Thrones, as that one has my interest piqued to a ridiculous level!

Though I have not read much Fantasy, I think just having a knowledge, no matter how light, of the genre is what could hurt stepping into books like SWORD, as it seems to being an extremely stereotypical story. Please don't think I am knocking it, as I am enjoying it. But non-Fantasy readers have a preconcieved idea as to what the genre is all about, and so far this one has followed it. But I am enjoying the trip to another world, time, life, enough that it is making me decide to give more Fantasy a chance. This might be the perfect genre to step into so I can avoid complete overkill with Horror.

One of the things that always bothered, even WAY back when I was planning on reading these as a kid, was that the three original books covered three generations. I never understood why Brooks didn't just stick with Shea and Flick, unless something happens in the first book that would prevent that from happening.

As to the assumption that SWORD is stereotypical, let me address something. Yes, the story at face value is fairly typical (and a fair imitation of LoTR, for that matter). But keep in mind that it was published in 1977, when there was very little fantasy on the shelves, and virtually nothing on the bestseller list. Tolkien had his first big run 10 years before, and something of a reemergence at the time of SWORD. But Brooks helped launch what is now the fantasy genre into the popularity it has today. Stereotypical? His formula is very standard today, but that's because 30 years of fantasy since then has made it that way. Tolkien started it (in the modern age), but Brooks helped boost it into our lives. He shouldn't be passed off as "just another one".

Carl - as far as the generation jumps, that gets explained and you should see upon reading them (and the next series) that it's essential to the story....

Cool! Thanks for that.
I have wondered if these stories were so stereotypical at the time. Tolkien did pretty much invent, or perfect, the genre, didn't he? And from what I was able to figure, Brooks seems to have been the "next big thing" after Tolkien. Is that fairly accurate?

Yeah, that's pretty accurate I'd say. There were others, but he was the big one to sell lots of books. I'd say read the first one, and if it works for you, keep going. Read one or two then come back to them after exploring other things. And btw, A Game of Thrones is one of my all time favorite books...

The best part of the Sword of Shannara is the ending. There's lots of excitement (and overblown descriptions) before that, but the ending really clinches it as a classic, I think. Getting to the end of the book is a bit of a monumental task, though. ;)

I would just like to say that all around page 130 of Sword I became hooked. I suddenly found myself sitting up in my seat, smile from ear to ear, and actually becoming wrapped up in the story. It's the characters. Really it is. Getting to Culhaven, having Allanon show up, meeting Hendel, it all started to click. If the book can move like this from here on out, I am hooked. If this is mediocre Fantasy, then count me in for the other books I have here.

While everyone keeps saying they've read these types of books, remember Sword was written in 1970 at that time there wasn't as many books out there as there are now. If you put it in that perspective then yes it is over used but it's had 30+ years to be copied and duplicated.

Brooks grows with his series, there's a huge improvement over the years and veers a little away from the sterotypical sword book.

I get frustrated when people read older books and don't keep in mind that at that time it was new to people and fantasy wasn't as popular as it is now.

Carl wrote: "Tolkien did pretty much invent, or perfect, the genre, didn't he? And from what I was able to figure, Bro..."

Careful! Fantasy has been around for a few thousand years, starting in the mists of time with oral traditions, and then with great story-tellers like Homer. Tolkien did not start modern fantasy, as there are writers like Peake, Lord Dunsany, C.S. Lewis, Lewis Carroll, etc., not to mention the early fantasy pulp writers, who contributed to the genre prior to the publication of The Hobbit. This being said, Tolkien set the standard for epic fantasy, and no one has come anywhere close to his world building (Janny Wurts, George RR Martin and Steven Erikson come closer than any I have read, but no one touches Tolkien in this regard). The standard three-novel format was decided by Unwin and Allen, Tolkien's publishers, who decided to put the book out in three parts. In fact, the whole of LOTR is about the size of one Robert Jordan's or George Martin's larger books. The fantasy trilogy has been the standard of the genre ever since, though it has recently become less important.

Brooks himself has always stuck to the three book format in each "section" of his Shannara stories.

Lochaber wrote: "Carl wrote: "Tolkien did pretty much invent, or perfect, the genre, didn't he? And from what I was able to figure, Bro..."

Careful! Fantasy has been around for a few thousand years, starting in t..."

Yup, I've been doing some research since originally posting my comment and see where I was wrong. I am trying to learn, and am finding it to being a much more interesting genre than I had always thought for all of these years.

Who started the maps in the beginning of the books?

Lochaber wrote: "Brooks himself has always stuck to the three book format in each "section" of his Shannara stories. ..."

The exception being the Heritage series, which is 4 books. Also might note that the original trilogy consisted of 3 stand-alone novels that his publishers then pushed off as a threesome.

Carl:

My guess is that Tolkien did, but that is a guess. I get ticked off now when I am reading a fantasy that DOESN'T have a map, especially if the description is not present (as is so often the case with modern authors). If it isn't on this world, the map is very helpful with world building.

I stand corrected by forgetting the age and context to which a book has been written, though I find it more relevant to refer to it in the modern pool of genre.

That said, I love maps at the beginnings of books. What I don’t love is low resolution maps in the beginnings of books. "Is that a city or a serif???"

~Chris

I don't like maps that I have to squint to read either. I like to get a general idea of where the people are especially if the author starts refering to time, landscape. The hard to read maps sometimes I wish they weren't even there that way it'd be in my head and less of a waste of paper and frustration :)

Tolkien set the gold standard when it comes to maps. The best version of the LOTR Middle Earth map was in Unfinished Tales, where Christopher Tolkien fixed the errors in the LOTR edition. Then there are The Hobbit maps, and I always loved the map of Beleriand in the Silmarillion. They made me want to go camping in Dorthonion (before it became Taur-nu-Fuin when the siege of Angband was broken).

I agree, poor maps are almost worse than none at all. Janny Wurts has good maps, and Robert Jordan's are good. Erikson's are a little hard to decipher. Martin's aren't bad, and Brooks is pretty good. A good map gives the reader some grounding in a world in which they have no understanding, without the author's help.

After reading LOTR, Shannara was my first foray into fantasy. I enjoyed them when I was young, but I can't really get into them anymore. For some reason they have this made up as you go kind of feel, and I really hate how the formula is pretty much the exact same in every book. They're just not very high quality writing.
However, those books don't speak for Terry Brook's writing talent as a whole. I read his Word and Void series (starting with Running with the Demon) and I really enjoyed it. It was more consistant, less formulaic and had interesting characters.

I always got the feeling Brooks improved in the Shannara series as it grew. It took me 2 or 3 times to read the first one but after I got into them they were okay :). Now the Word and Void ones I couldn't get into no matter how hard I tried.

I enjoyed the first three books when they first came out all those years ago. I craved epic fantasy at the time and there was very little to choose from in the bookshops. The Shannara books from the last 15 years just bore the pants off me. The Void series is pretty decent. My taste in reading has moved along since then. I also think it is unfair to compare the early Shannara books to the recent Fantasy output. The Fantasy pond has turned into a sea over the past three decades.

Boy, howdy, Josh, do I ever agree with you on Brooks. Like the Dragonlance stuff, his Shannara books are pretty predictable. But "Running With the Demon" (Word and Void) is highly imaginative and sharply written.

I loved all of Terry Brooks' books. He is an amazing writer!