Sci-fi and Heroic Fantasy discussion

Have you ever had an Author that when you began reading their writing you absolutely loved what they wrote, but over time, you found that you couldn't stand to read them anymore?

For me, that author would be Terry Goodkind. I started reading the Sword of Truth series in my mid teens, and the first three books were amazing. The fourth and fifth books started turning a little dark for me, and by the sixth book I started to notice Terry getting a little preachy with the tones of the books. I'd vested some time with the books by now and I wanted to see how they ended, but as they continued I felt like Terry was using his story as a medium to get his views across, and that's when I became jaded. I finished the series off, and needless to say I was upset with the ending, 12 books with an ending that brought so many story arcs to end in the span of two chapters.

Two more books have been written in a spin off series, but I can't bring myself to read them. Anyone else had a similar experience?

Absolutely! I loved Robert A. Heinlein's writing & had enormous respect for him until I Will Fear No Evil was published. I didn't care for it & while I read most of his books after that, it was definitely a downhill slide. The Number of the Beast completely shattered my hero worship. Looking back, the signs were there. I wasn't too thrilled with the last half of Glory Road. If he had left it as a novella, I would have been happier.

Laurell K. Hamilton is another author who became a huge disappointment. Her Anita Blake series, one of the first urban fantasies, started off with a strong action heroine who devolved until one whole book had her in a hotel room whining about her life & engaging in a one-woman orgy. The 'action' for the novel was the last chapter summary. Yuck.

Some books shouldn't be turned into series. Dune & Ender's Game should have remained as standalones, IMO. (Yes, I know many disagree.) I agree with you about Goodkind's series, although I recently reread Wizard's First Rule & didn't care for it nearly as much.

Some series can keep the action up. The Parker series by Richard Stark held up very well for over a dozen books. The latest have lost their tight writing & some of their edginess, though. Not bad for a series that spans 2 dozen books over 40+ years, though. Donald Hamilton's Matt Helm series is another that held up remarkably well, too.

L.E Modesitt's Recluce series was like that for me, loved the first one but was not able to even finish te secind one...however I do still love some of his other series, it's just that one.

The Outlander series to, I read a little over half of them but...they just sort of became boring.

Bryce, Yes, I agree with your comments on Goodkind. I connected with the book series after watching the serialized TV show, "The Legend of The Seeker" (which I enjoyed very much). I read the first four books and don't plan on reading the others. Too dark and violent and the 'story' seems to have gotten lost amongst all that violence. It's depressing and I don't want to read about how terrible and horrific the bad guys can be and Richard is never, I mean never ever, going to really win (I heard Richard dies in book 12 - how disappointing is that? Definitely won't read that one).

Perhaps I am an old fuddy-duddy but please let the good guys succeed after a great, if long, fight and call it good. don't keep dragging the bad guys back up from hell just as life is approaching its usual chaotic self.

I am not the type of reader who needs to have every story end with a happily-ever-after for all the characters, but give me a break. I'm disappointed enough with the series, and the author, that this fuddy-duddy is removing the rest of Goodkind's books from my want to read list. He should have stopped with Wizard's First Rule.

Basically, any author who has a long series of books based on the same universe.

For instance, Zelazny's "Chroicles of Amber", that I've read in my mid teens as well. I was totally amazed by the first book, and the second was not less intriguing. Yet, I've barely made myself to go through the fourth, and never wanted to revise the reading. I just can't imagine that anything is going to surprise me in this saltatio of chaos any more. It became apparent that all and everything is not what it is looks like, that the princes may bend the reality the way they please... So, well, these are the rules of the game, and maybe I just want to read something shorter with more restrictive rules, hence more room for a surprise.

Same goes for Herbert, Perumov, Azimov's Foundation... You name it.

Nikolay wrote: "Basically, any author who has a long series of books based on the same universe."

That is not the case for me. Piers Anthony's Xanth series is just as fun now as it was when I began it. So too is Robert Asprin's Myth series. But then again- both are light-hearted, with only brief forays into darkness.

Jim wrote: "Absolutely! I loved Robert A. Heinlein's writing & had enormous respect for him until I Will Fear No Evil was published. ...."

The first I thought of, too. :(


Jim wrote: "Some books shouldn't be turned into series. Dune & Ender's Game should have remained as standalones, IMO. (Yes, I know many disagree.)..."

I'd agree with Dune. I'll point out that Ender's Game was actually Card's prequel to Speaker for the Dead, which I thought was excellent; but the Bean continuations of Ender were pure commercial fluff.

But there are a lot of authors lured into cranking out sequels to big commercial hits. Understandable; you've got to put the kids through college somehow.

I enjoyed the early books in the Gor series, by John Norman. But as it progressed, there were more and more pages devoted to the "slave girl" aspect of the story, instead of the sword-and-planet action aspect.

I finally gave up on about the 11th book of the series, because I realized I was skimming through over half of the book, just to find the portions that didn't deal with slave girls.

It's too bad the Kindle eBooks don't have some way to automatically edit out those scenes. :)

Randy wrote: "It's too bad the Kindle eBooks don't have some way to automatically edit out those scenes. :)..."

Oh, yeah, because nobody would scream about censorship....

The technical term for this phenomenom is 'the brain eater'. As in, "The brain eater got Zelazny -- his latter books just aren't as good."

The cause of brain eating varies. Sometimes the author's health fails; sometimes (hello, John Norman!) his inherent nuttiness overwhelms plot and character.

And the brain eater is different from the suck fairy. The suck fairy is when you go back to a book you enjoyed tremendously years ago, and somehow it is not good anymore. The suck fairy got to it and changed BLACK BEAUTY from a charming horse novel into a book about animal cruelty.

Brenda wrote: "The technical term for this phenomenom is 'the brain eater'. As in, "The brain eater got Zelazny -- his latter books just aren't as good."


I won't really agree about Zelazny. To me, he just reached the full speed from the very beginning, and whatever changes there may have occured, there was no way for him to surprise the reader any more. Corvin reaches the farthest outskirts of Chaos in Book III or something, everyone is a hero and a villain at the same time, and even if everything turns upside down... well, it will just turn upside down once again. It was possible to extend his universe linearly in the readers mind, but not exponentially of even "factorally" as it was in Book I.

Brenda wrote: "The cause of brain eating varies. Sometimes the author's health fails; ..."

I thought it was because the author became so successful s/he didn't have to listen to editors anymore.

+1 on Dune. An amazing book followed by books I could barely keep interest in to finish.

G33z3r wrote: "Oh, yeah, because nobody would scream about censorship...."

How would it be censorship, if I as a reader chose the "ignore the slave scenes" option of reading the book? It's just to save me the work of skimming over them. I suppose much like skipping commercials when I play back a TV show I recorded on a DVR.

The series started getting troublesome after the 6th book. I recall seeing somewhere that that was when he no longer had a female publisher/editor going over his books before they were published. How many editors are out there "censoring" books, just by editing them?

I wonder if something like The Adventures of Tom Sawyer could do the same thing -- release it "as is", but also have an option on the Kindle to allow one to read the "edited" version.

Robert Jordan and the Wheel of Time series.
Started reading them as they were first published.
First 3 books really enjoyed.
I gave up, totally bored by the lack of plot progression by book 5. I think I literally lost the plot. I understand some people make it to number 10 before giving up. Then there are many who make it to the end.
Not to speak ill of the dead, but it is really ironic that the author himself never made it to the end.
It annoys me because those 5 books took probably 150 hours of my life away that I can't get back. If I had know the series was going to take 22 years, 11 months and 24 days to write I would not have gone anywhere near the first book.
Life IS too short!

John Norman had a clause in his book contracts -- no editor. All DAW could do was take the manuscript and hand it to the printer. You can see the pernicious effects of this if you crack open any volume. Without effort you can find mispunctuation, typoes that even Norman himself would admit were mistakes. So it was a very silly thing for him to demand. He was sufficiently popular, at that moment, that he could demand it and make the demand stick.

The latter Heinlein is another example of an author becoming too famous and powerful for possibly his own good. Zelazny, however, was ill. His very last works were ground out against time, to beat the Grim Reaper -- never the way to get the best work out of anybody.

I don't agree with Zelazny going downhill due to illness. I think he did his best work in the 60's up until the early 80's with the exception of A Night in the Lonesome October which was one of his last. The Merlin Amber novels weren't very good compared to the first 5 featuring Corwin & were about the time his writing lost a lot of its edge.

Brenda wrote: "John Norman had a clause in his book contracts -- no editor. All DAW could do was take the manuscript and hand it to the printer."

But DAW started as the publisher on #8, right? Wasn't it Ballantine originally?

#8 was on a downhill run for me.

I'm almost curious enough to pick up the latest in the series, just to see what it's like.

I agree with Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind, Laurell K. Hamilton. I'll add Raymond E. Feist and Mercedes Lackey - they just seemed to be repeating the same story with different characters after a few trilogies.

And sorry, but I have to add G.R.R. Martin to this, I just get more and more bored and uninterested with each book, skimming big chunks to find the good bits.

Oh Anne Rice! I just loved the first three vampire books and The Mummy, and then it was all downhill. Maybe she will redeem herself with the new Lestat book due out this year.

I'll disagree with Dune - at least Frank Herbert's original stories. I might not enjoy each of them the same (ugh, God Emperor) but I found the overall ideas he was exploring fascinating, and it takes all the books to see the entire arc of his theory. It's weird, but I like it.

Also I know I'm in the minority with liking Heinlein's later books like Number of the Beast and To Sail Beyond the Sunset, but I do.

The only long running series that I think hasn't suffered at all is the Dresden Files, and I believe that's because Butcher had a plan for the whole thing right from the start and he's sticking to it. They aren't all amazing, but they are all good and he'll get my money right to the end.

I would agree that for a lot of longer running series (like Anita Blake) there comes a time long before their actual end, where they SHOULD have ended.

But, as G33z3r mentioned - bills have to be paid. And if the author can still get money from the series then more power to them (not a popular opinion, I'm sure).

For me, I hate going to re-read The Lord of the Rings. I barely got through it the first time (after having long breaks and needing to start over). The story itself is wonderful, and amazing, and I love it. But all the details? My gosh...

Dracula, by Bram Stoker, is one I read while I was younger (junior high age) because it had vampires. More specifically, THE vampire Dracula. I really couldn't get into it then, but a year or two ago I re-read it, and found it absolutely amazing.

I would love to start Storm Front (or whichever is the first) of the Dresden Files. The series looks very interesting, and if Jim Butcher has planned it out and isn't totally winging it, I think it could hold up.

I can't argue with an author milking a series for money. I don't have to like it, though.

Bryce wrote: "Have you ever had an Author that when you began reading their writing you absolutely loved what they wrote, but over time, you found that you couldn't stand to read them anymore?"

Yes, although for me I think they break down into a couple of catagories.

I Changed.
As a teen and even into my twenties I loved the old Edgar Rice Burroughs science fantasy books, particularly the Barsoom series. Later when I reached my 40s and 50s I sometimes cringe when I try to read read those stories. The I just can't get past the florid writing style and total disregard for actual scientific fact anymore.

The Author Changed.
Some authors has one (or a few) good books, and then either could not recapture what made the first book(s) so good, or changed their focus or writing so much that I no longer enjoyed them. The former include Frank Herbert's Dune series and Orson Scott Card's Ender series. Neither of these authors (IMO) ever came close to the original book in any of their subsequent sequels. Some examples of the latter are Laurell K. Hamilton's Anita Blake books, which changed from a fairly good action/urban fantasy series to poorly written supernatural porn. To a lesser extent I would class J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter series here, too. I loved the excitement and sense of wonder of the first three books. After that they became progressively more dark and (again IMO) depressing, especially for what was supposed to be a YA series.

Brenda wrote: The suck fairy got to it and changed BLACK BEAUTY from a charming horse novel into a book about animal cruelty.

Or changed LOTR from an uplifting book about good versus evil into a sleazy book in which white-skinned good guys beat the crap out of black-skinned bad guys.

Or changed the Narnia books from stories about talking animals and magic into barely-concealed Christian propaganda.

I think the other name for the suck fairy is 'growing up'.

Now that I've thought about it more, Robert Newcomb is another one I would add to the list. More for how dark his books are. I guess as I've gotten older, the dark books get to me. Like Terry Goodkind's main character, it just seems like they never catch a break, and I've never had the stomach for reading torture in books. Seems much worse when you read it as opposed to seeing something in a movie, or tv show.

I'm glad I'm not the only who's had an autor show them a little magic at first, only to find out the ace was in their sleeve the whole time!

Another I just thought of and not really Sci Fi or Fantasy but the Hannibal Lectar series. First two books WOW! Second two barely suitable for toilet paper...

Althalus wrote: "Becuse quiet frankly he kills them all just when they start to become interesting! "

A joke at a right time may be hilarious. The same joke revised ten times is boring, even if the timing is right. And you'll wish to kill someone revising it a hundred of times.

So it can make you cry to watch Ned Stark die, but after a while such deaths become "just so expectedly GRR".

If an author repeatedly kills off his characters, it either means he can't get them right or he really, really hates people.

Nemo wrote: "If an author repeatedly kills off his characters, it either means he can't get them right or he really, really hates people."

Nikolay wrote: "Althalus wrote: "Becuse quiet frankly he kills them all just when they start to become interesting! "

A joke at a right time may be hilarious. The same joke revised ten times is boring, even if t..."

I have to agree with both of you lol. Though personly I think he just gets stuck, if you look at when he kills his characters off, he always kills them when they reach the point of having gotten themselves into a right mess and there is no where for them to go to or when, in order for the character to continue and grow, they would need to do something that would change the story's out come. Then they die, rather suddenly, often without much reason, and suddenly. LOL

I think the deaths of beloved characters is a necessary part of fiction - "Kill your darlings" and all. It just doesn't ring true to me if there isn't a little sadness to balance out the resolution you come to in the end. It's almost as though the deaths make the story more meaningful.

Language/names-wise, I love lexicons - Kevin Hearne and Stephen R. Lawhead do great jobs with that, especially since they're mucking about with Old Gaelic, which can be nigh unfathomable.

Leo (Rahien Sorei) wrote: "I think the deaths of beloved characters is a necessary part of fiction - "Kill your darlings" and all. It just doesn't ring true to me if there isn't a little sadness to balance out the resolution..."

Perhaps, but I would agree that Mr. Martin does it too much. If it becomes so commonplace, either the deaths don't mean anything to the reader, or (as I do) the reader distances themselves from the characters and no longer cares.

Pretty much the biggest reason I don't read his books, actually. I want characters I like and love to live, and not die in inglorious ways.

However, I do agree that a well-placed death can do wonders for a story.

Oh I have read many a book that was the better for a character or two dying (mostly because I no longer had to live with them!) But G.R.R.M just does it to much and in to careless a way. He says he kills them because of the time period that he has based the book in and "realism". But shaving read other books based upon the same time (I read a lot of historical fiction) one can in fact stay true to the time and kill quiet a few people without loosing the plot or numbing your readers to the death of the characters.

Those books also managed to retain at least one main character through out the story alive. This is something I think GOT is missing, you need someone to connect to, someone wjo's story matters to you and makes you want to read the next book.

I think you guys are missing the point. When royals play the game of thrones- lots of people die. Even good ones. I really think that's what he's trying to convey.

I only have two character left that I love, and I hope those characters make it till the end.

Althalus wrote: "This is something I think GOT is missing, you need someone to connect to, someone wjo's story matters to you and makes you want to read the next book. ."

Completely agree!

Although I do like the current names for his characters - they all seem to fit very well; even the more common ones like Ned or Jaime go with the more exotic like Cersei and Sansa.

Part of Martin's problem is the huge expansion he made in his world. He dealt with Westeros & one complex political situation, but now he's dealing with many nations & the cast is also getting unwieldy. I thought the first 3 books were great. They were tight & moved forward. The 4th had so much going on that even breaking it into 2 books, I never felt much happened. It was mostly background, growing the world.

Jim wrote: "Part of Martin's problem is the huge expansion he made in his world. He dealt with Westeros & one complex political situation, but now he's dealing with many nations & the cast is also getting unwieldy."

I will agree with that. I found my attention wandering a LOT in the 4th book...

It seems to be suffering from the same problem Jordan ran into in The Wheel of Time series - the cast gets too big, and we wind up wandering farther away from the main idea/plot line. It's enough to make one tug their braid right out of one's head. It's still interesting, but a bit too tangential.

You gotta wonder what could happen if the unthinkable happens and someone else has to take up the GoT mantle, as Brandon Sanderson did (with astounding success) with Jordan's life's work.

Natalie wrote: "I think you guys are missing the point. When royals play the game of thrones- lots of people die. Even good ones. I really think that's what he's trying to convey.

I only have two character lef..."


Well no...one can get the point that good guys die as well when people play a dangerous game of politics without killing everyone and most importantly without loosing the plot.I won't say more but is was as though every book was a part of a diffrent series with just a few shared characters.

Leo (Rahien Sorei) wrote: "It seems to be suffering from the same problem Jordan ran into in The Wheel of Time series - the cast gets too big, and we wind up wandering farther away from the main idea/plot line."

I had similar problems withEric Flint's Ring of Fire series, and David Weber's Hells Gate series. The first one started out as a fairly tight narrative, but eventually the cast of characters grew so huge and the storyline so fragmented, I just couldn't being myself to care about anyone. The second series started out that way. Too many characters, too many storylines, too confusing.

Natalie wrote: I think you guys are missing the point. When royals play the game of thrones- lots of people die. Even good ones. I really think that's what he's trying to convey.

You don't write a long series of books just to make a point. Unless you're a monomaniac. Hmm.

Confession time: I have not read George R.R.Martin. Nothing I hear about his books makes me want to read him. He sounds like a puppet-master rather than someone who cares about his characters, and I have no time for puppet-masters. But perhaps I should bow out of this discussion, and at least read Game of Thrones. God knows everyone else has.

Watch the HBO series. It's a pretty good summation. I watched the first season then read the books. The character casting is excellent.

You could watch all of the seasons and pick up toward the end of book three, if not delve straight into book 4. They hold true fairly well, I've been quite pleasantly surprised by it.

Jim wrote: "Watch the HBO series. It's a pretty good summation. I watched the first season then read the books. The character casting is excellent."

Good to know. I've recorded a couple of seasons but didn't watch them because my brother bought me the first book in the series. I've been planning to read it...for the past two years. It just seems daunting. LOTR but without the fun bits. I can handle that in a TV show but not in a book.

I honestly wouldn't compare it to LOTR, but that's probably best saved for another thread.

Leo (Rahien Sorei) wrote: "I honestly wouldn't compare it to LOTR, but that's probably best saved for another thread."

I was thinking more of the warrior parts and the fight scenes...and the clothing, based solely on the TV trailers for the show. Not the story itself since I admitted I haven't read GoT yet.

Nemo, I didn't read the first GOT book very fast because I'd seen the show & I didn't really want to revisit some things. I blew through the rest very quickly, though. Just one more thing to keep in mind as you balance which media to enjoy it in.

Nemo wrote:Confession time: I have not read George R.R.Martin. Nothing I hear about his books makes me want to read him."

Welcome to the club!

Yup. I agree with most of those. For me the point becomes "Haven't I read this before?"
Reached that pretty early with the L.E. Modesitt Jr. as well as the Shannara books.

I really enjoyed the first book David Farland The Sum of All Men .
Things went pretty down hill after that. I don't think I'll be reading the 8th. (I stopped around the 4th or 5th?)

yep, I loved RAH's early stuff, but the later novels blew chunks

Terry Goodkind fits this bill for me.

Except Terry Goodkind is so much more preachy and gratuitous than RAH or Jordan. Isn't the second book (The Stone of Tears?) essentially about a castle full of women trying to sleep with Richard?